The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South Power, Privilege, and the Unchecked Narrative The withdrawal of institutional fact-checking mechanisms disproportionately benefits those already equipped with financial, political, or technological resources. Politicians, corporations, and other well-funded actors possess advanced capacities to craft and disseminate persuasive messaging. Without structured verification, such groups often amplify tailored disinformation, manipulate digital echo chambers, and dominate algorithmic attention economies.[5] False narratives, particularly those strategically engineered for virality, can entirely reshape elections, influence public opinion, and direct policy outcomes. To take a popular example, the deepfake videos of Bollywood actors Aamir Khan and Ranveer Singh went viral during the 2024 general elections. Such instances, not only negatively influence electoral integrity and they also undermine the public’s right to an informed vote.[6] In such cases, the digital space becomes more than a marketplace of ideas and becomes a platform where those with greater capital and resources can purchase and preserve narrative dominance. Such in built fact- checking mechanisms can counter these practices, and can literally save democracies of a country. Marginalisation and Digital Inequality False narratives, particularly those strategically engineered for virality, can entirely reshape elections, influence public opinion, and direct policy outcomes. 116 The erosion of fact-checking disproportionately harms communities already underrepresented in digital spaces. Marginalised populations, including rural, low-income, and digitally underserved communities, often lack the resources and literacy to navigate disinformation. Without reliable verification mechanisms, these communities are more vulnerable to misleading content that perpetuates stereotypes, undermines trust in institutions, or spreads false health and welfare information.[7] While the Government’s Fact-Checking Unit (FCU)[8] serves as an important institutional mechanism for regulation and rapid responses to fake news and misleading information, the scale of the problem, in the context of India’s social, cultural, linguistic and demographic diversity, makes a centralised system inadequate. Social, digital and information divides mean those When Power Meets Platform affected do not know how to access these platforms or any other reporting mechanisms. In such cases, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. To tackle this deep-rooted problem, a hyperlocal assessment, and a decentralised approach to tackling misinformation, fake news, and disinformation through trusted village-level intermediaries is quintessential, as proven by the Digital Empowerment Foundation’s (DEF) SoochnaPreneur model.[9] Through the SoochnaPreneur programme, DEF seeks to mitigate the adverse effects of the rural information divide, given the heavy reliance on social media for health, financial, and civic information. Leveraging a nationwide network of 2,400 SoochnaPreneurs, DEF trains community members in information verification and the dissemination of reliable, accurate and trustworthy information. As Salma does in her village, SoochnaPreneurs act as rural fact-checkers and trusted information intermediaries, embodying a bottom-up model of information equity rooted in local social and cultural realities. However, when global platforms reduce systemic oversight, initiatives like SoochnaPreneur face greater challenges. The withdrawal of platform-level fact-checking shifts the burden of verification onto individuals and grassroots organisations, often without commensurate resources. Converging Interests: Big Tech and Governance Some analysts interpret Mark Zuckerberg’s decision and its timing, coinciding with a politically conservative U.S. administration, as a strategic recalibration of Meta’s relationship with administrative power.[10] While such interpretations remain contested, they raise legitimate concerns about the alignment of private technological authority with governmental agendas. When the interests of Big Tech and governance converge, the risk of regulatory capture and erosion of public accountability increases. This convergence of interests undermines democratic checks and balances, as the informational ecosystem becomes shaped by private priorities rather than the public good. When Power Meets Platform When global platforms reduce systemic oversight, initiatives like SoochnaPreneur face greater challenges. The withdrawal of platform-level fact-checking shifts the burden of verification onto individuals and grassroots organisations, often without commensurate resources. 117