Listen to the article
Social media platforms have become battlegrounds for unverified information amid recent tensions, with a surge of misinformation spreading at unprecedented rates. Fact-checking organizations including Alt News, Boom Live, and the government’s Press Information Bureau are working relentlessly to separate fact from fiction as dubious content proliferates online.
While information warfare has historically been a component of military strategy, experts argue that what’s currently unfolding on social media represents something different and potentially more dangerous.
Air Marshal Anil Chopra has defined psychological warfare as “the emotional aspect of communication, where information involving psychological components is delivered to a target audience to bring a shift in its emotions and outlook.” These are typically coordinated campaigns directed at enemies during wartime.
However, cybersecurity analyst Nandakishore Harikumar, founder of Technisanct, distinguishes the current phenomenon from genuine information warfare. “Information warfare is important, it is part of modern warfare technique,” Harikumar explained, “But it has to have coordinated efforts. Right now this is more of engagement farming.”
The landscape is crowded with social media accounts openly promoting the spread of unverified information. Some users explicitly state they will amplify content regardless of its accuracy if it serves their perceived national interests. One account encouraged followers to share such information “again and again,” highlighting the deliberate nature of these campaigns.
Social media influencers with substantial followings are playing significant roles in this information ecosystem. Sahiba Bali, who commands an audience of over 720,000 Instagram followers, has characterized the situation as the “art of war,” suggesting that conflicting information is a deliberate strategy to confuse perceived enemies.
“This is a psychological and strategic method of warfare where you give inaccurate and different non-standardized information…so to confuse the people, especially the enemy,” Bali stated in a recent post.
Adding to the complexity, some accounts claim insider knowledge from purported high-ranking military officials. One verified user reported having spoken with “a high-ranking active army officer” who allegedly confirmed that such information tactics are “officially taught to us as part of tactics.” Such claims lend an air of legitimacy to the spread of unverified content.
Particularly troubling is the growing hostility toward fact-checking efforts. Multiple influential accounts have criticized those attempting to verify information, with one account labeling such attempts as the behavior of “traitors.” Another user with 19,000 followers questioned why some Indians were “busy fact checking things which are favorable to India,” while a third account with over 270,000 followers actively encouraged misinformation, claiming it “will help our defense forces a lot.”
This attitude represents a concerning shift in how information is valued in public discourse, prioritizing perceived national interest over factual accuracy.
Harikumar emphasizes that genuine information warfare operates under “a different set of standards” than what’s currently proliferating online. “It will be well-propagated, it will be well-articulated. Like we have seen the instances in Russia-Ukraine war where there is manufacturing of evidence to prove and substantiate this kind of misinformation. But this is not what we see in this case,” he noted.
The cybersecurity expert points to a particularly insidious aspect of the current information landscape: when accounts previously known for credible reporting begin spreading unverified content, it becomes especially difficult for audiences to distinguish fact from fiction. “They are made to believe that it’s genuine, and misinformation becomes real information,” Harikumar explained.
Pratik Sinha, cofounder of Alt News, has expressed alarm about these developments, describing the phenomenon as “delusion max” in a recent post on X (formerly Twitter).
As tensions continue, the battle for factual integrity faces mounting challenges. The blurring of lines between patriotic sentiment and factual reporting raises significant concerns about the public’s ability to access reliable information during critical times when accuracy matters most.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
8 Comments
Interesting topic. Sharing fake news can certainly be a form of psychological warfare, as it aims to sway emotions and opinions. However, the uncoordinated nature of much online misinformation makes it distinct from traditional information warfare tactics. Curious to see how experts propose combating this growing challenge.
I agree, the lack of coordination sets this apart from military information warfare. Fact-checking efforts seem crucial, but the sheer volume of misinformation is daunting. Finding ways to inoculate the public against falling for fake news will be key.
Sharing fake news is undoubtedly a serious issue, with the potential to cause real harm. While it may not fit the classic definition of information warfare, the effect can be just as damaging – sowing division, eroding trust, and distorting public discourse. Effective solutions will require a multi-pronged approach.
Well said. Even if not coordinated, the widespread proliferation of misinformation online can have devastating impacts. Educating the public on media literacy and critical thinking will be essential to counter this growing threat to democracy and social cohesion.
This is a complex issue without easy answers. I can see merits to both the information warfare and uncoordinated misinformation perspectives. Regardless of the framing, the real-world consequences are severe and demand a robust response from tech platforms, governments, and civil society. Fact-checking alone may not be enough.
Fascinating analysis. The distinction between coordinated information warfare and the more chaotic spread of online misinformation is an important one. Both pose serious risks, but the latter may be even harder to combat given its decentralized nature. Curious to see what policy solutions emerge to address this growing challenge.
I agree, the decentralized nature of much online misinformation makes it a particularly thorny issue. Effective solutions will likely require a multi-faceted approach blending technological, educational, and regulatory measures. Combating this threat to truth and democracy will be an ongoing battle.
This is a critical issue that deserves close attention. While the current wave of misinformation may not fit the classic definition of information warfare, the real-world harms are no less severe. Fact-checking, media literacy education, and robust platform policies will all be essential to address this growing challenge.