“This has been shared thousands of times. Could it be true?” A member of the Senior team of ‘Sachee Khabar’ asked, an initiative to verify facts that we had launched, coinciding, by chance, with the 2019 Pakistan-Indian conflict, which unleashed a torrent of online misinformation. The consultation referred to a viral position of an account that said to be an ‘conventional’ Indian media, claiming that the Indian Air Force had demolished an F-16 Pakistani and captured its pilot. The claim disturbedly reflected an incident from the beginning that day, involving the commander of Ala India Abhinandan Varthaman, whose mig-21 was shot down, which led to his capture by the Pakistani forces.
The publication, later we discovered, was deliberately eliberate to exploit the emotional weight of that event, cheating the public at a volatile moment. He won such an overwhelming traction in X that even an experienced fact verifier almost fell in love. Fortunately, we could discredit it, but the incident emphasizes how easily falsehoods can overcome the facts, especially when they take advantage of the nationalist feeling during the moments of high tension.
More and more, it feels almost like a business model adopted by much of the media, particularly through the border: to prosper in misinformation, capitalize the economy of attention and move on without considering the deepest consequences. There is little reflection on how this reckless cycle damages the conflict, strengthens the hostility and restructuring the public mentality around fear and anger. And as if the Jingoism of the main media were not harmful enough, the same stories manufactured have now found a megaphone on social networks, where this outrage is amplified ten times. Together with the non -authentic coordinated activity that the ruling BJP has been repeatedly accused of orchestra, the fear of fear is now reaching an industrial scale.
The explosion of Jingoism, misinformation and digital outrage after Pahalgam’s attack has exposed an awkward truth. The social media platforms, which had reduced their efforts to verify facts and moderation of content, no longer simply do not contain the consequences; Actually, they can be feeding the escalation of the conflict. The flood of erroneous information on the Indian side has been particularly surprising. The facts of facts such as Alt News India found the main points of sale that recycled old images and falsely linked them with the Pahalgam attack, set up the impulse generated by the coordinated Troll networks and benefit from indignation instead of rejecting it.
False statements, manufactured images and incendiary rhetoric are spreading.
In all platforms such as Meta, X and YouTube, false statements, manufactured images and incendiary rhetoric seem to extend without resistance. The moderation systems that could have ever marked, limited or contextualized such content seem to be remarkably absent. This collapse is not incidental. In the last two years, the main technological companies have constantly dismantled the fragile verification and crisis response structures that had ever established. Meta responded his third -party facts programs, X aspired to his trusted and security teams and changed to a system of ‘community notes’ much weaker, and YouTube adopted a moderation approach unless they boost direct political pressure.
The collapse of the moderation of the platform is worrying enough for itself, but the political regulation of discourse has taken an even more clear turn. Immediately after Pahalgam’s attack, the Indian government moved quickly to block access to several Pakistani news websites and YouTube channels, including the main points of sale as Sunrise, Geographical newsand Ary newsciting concerns about the ‘provocative’ content. The action seems less about security and more about the closure of alternative perspectives, further reducing the spectrum of information that is already shrinking for the Indian public, which are increasingly exposed to a singular and Jingoist narrative. At a time when clarity, verification and dissident voices are more necessary, the digital space is being cordoned off with an alarming speed.
This unequal application of the rules further aggravates the danger of misinformation. The demolition requests aimed at the Pakistani content were rapidly processed, while the inflammatory material directed against Pakistan continued to circulate freely. This asymmetry is not new, but in times of crisis, it becomes even more difficult to ignore. Platforms that claim to defend neutrality cannot act with such a selective urgency. In practice, these options shape the information battlefield, privileging certain narratives while systematically suppressing others.
In an environment already full of distrust and historical complaint, the withdrawal of the responsibility of the platform is not neutral. It is a choice with real world consequences. Misinformation in southern Asia does not remain limited to digital space; Attitudes harden, deepens communal tensions and runs the risk of generating real world violence. Following Pahalgam’s attack, the dissemination without control of false news has fed precisely the type of destabilizing anger that rational voices have fought to contain.
It is important to be clear: the collapse of responsible journalism and the moderation of the platform affects both countries. It is not unilateral. The spaces of Pakistani social networks are not immune to the dissemination of erroneous information, and the closure of access to the Pakistani media within India has made it even more difficult for alternative perspectives to reach the Indian public. The war of misinformation feeds itself, with each rumor or distortion on one side reinforcing anger and suspicion in the other. The result is a vicious circle of indignation, distrust and increasingly narrators for dialogue.
The reduction of the serious counter-informed efforts of technological platforms is not simply the result of budget cuts or changing corporate priorities. It is part of a broader strategy to avoid political entanglements by withdrawing from complete responsibility. The platforms hide more and more behind a simplistic notion of ‘freedom of expression’, while their algorithms continue to reward indignation, amplify the division and privilege the most emotionally loaded content, regardless of their veracity. In regions such as South Asia, where misinformation bets are measured not only in bad opinions, but also in real violence, this non -intervention approach is deeply irresponsible.
If there is any hope of a different path, it lies in the reconstruction of serious and sensitive moderation infrastructure. Platforms must restore associations with verifiers of independent facts that work in Urdu, Hindi and regional languages. They must empower teams to respond to the crisis that political and cultural landscapes understand in which they operate. And they must abandon the fantasy that “neutrality” means that dangerous falsehoods spread without control. In times of crisis in the real world, neutrality without responsibility is complicity.
The writer is the founder of Media Matters for Democracy.
Posted in Dawn, May 10, 2025
