 Pratik, you would argue that the only way to counter falsehood and fake videos is to actually circulate the truth. And the answer to such fake news or the ecosystem of fake news is to also get a set of people who can react immediately and responsibly, not through counter fake news, but through actual truth. And alt-news is really an exercise of that kind. Yes. In alt-news, the exercise essentially is that, I spoke about internet literacy, the exercise is essentially to try and instill a sense of doubt in a user. Because we want to tell them that yesterday you forwarded this, this was fake, day before that you forwarded this, this was fake. So if you tell somebody 10 times, 20 times, 30 times, there will be a point in time where there will be a natural sense of curiosity, which will, you know, the question will come in your head. Is this true? Because I have been told so many times that what I posted yesterday and for so many days, a lot of it has been fake. So is this true? So, you know, what we are trying is reverse classical conditioning, you know, classical conditioning or confirmation bias is that, you know, you belong to certain ideological background and, you know, because something which favors that ideological background, you know, you tend to believe it in it more and you, so you propagate it, you know. What this exercise is reverse classical conditioning where we are trying to tell you that, you know, you might have your biases, but at least try and be critical as to what you see because we are telling you that what you have been forwarding for such a long time is fake. You know, to think here is the other point that you talked about the filter bubble of the Facebook that people tend to stay in groups which are closed and they only therefore see what their friends and relations are seeing. So, you get a certain kind of ideological conditioning which is reinforced. Well, Google is not very dissimilar. Yes, it's a little better than Facebook perhaps, but as you know, the filter bubble came out, the book called Filter Bubble came out at a time when Facebook was not even really important. Right. So what you are seeing is the digital platforms tend to segment viewers and you tend to therefore get caught into this kind of filter bubbles. Now, how do you think therefore the critical conditioning that you are talking about can take place when a certain set of people will always believe what their ideology tells them to believe and they also tend to be much more close-minded and shall we say pray to emotional conditioning rather to what I would call as objective truth. So, yes, there will be people, you know, there are people who you will give them every fact in the book to show that X is fake, they would still doubt it and there will be that section of population. But you know, this exercise is larger in the sense that what I personally believe is that you know, there is a large portion of neutral population who are making their electoral decisions. They are already starting to make the electoral decisions based on fake news, you know, because that is constant conditioning. It may not be one particular piece of fake news which eventually led them to decide in whose favor they will, you know, cast their ballot. But a continuous stream of fake news that will, you know, lead to some kind of mental conditioning. So, you know, all the news is essentially trying to target that area, you know, where who are not blind to facts anymore. Obviously, those who are absolutely blind to facts, who have been brainwashed, you know, in different institutions right from the start, irrespective of which political ideology they may be, it's impossible to reach out to them. And there is a whole section of population which is beyond them. Now, the almost bitioric success of alt news, and I must say, since we run NewsClick, we are quite jealous of you. The bitioric success of alt news would show that there is really been that population which is willing to critically look at the phenomena of fake news. And therefore, what you are saying is now partially proven by the kind of response you've got? I think so. For example, we have this email address contact at altnews.in, and we keep getting emails. Is this true? Is this true? Is this true? Is this true? So, you know, there is a lot of traction on Facebook, on Twitter, etc. We keep getting tagged. Is this true? Is this true? And especially because, you know, people do not want to, you know, there is a sense of guilt when, you know, of course, again, there is a sectional population no matter what, whether it is right or wrong, they will stick to their view. But there are other people who when they realize that they have forwarded something fake. You know, there is a sense of guilt. And so that thing will, you know, come into play and, you know, people will start sort of asking themselves, you know, let me first sort of, you know, at least do some validation. If I can't do validation on my, you know, myself, let me ask SM Huxley or Boom Live or all these, you know, there are multiple of us now to, you know, is this true? You know, should I believe in it or not? Because and I have also noticed that especially the ones which are shocking and I, you know, people keep asking me, what is the advice that you want to give to people, you know, sort of what fake news to build, you know, whether, you know, who are getting falling prey to fake news. So, you know, I usually say that, you know, it cannot be left to the common man to decide what is fake, what is not fake. Because after a 9 to 5 job, you know, they have a couple of hours for entertainment in which, you know, they check the WhatsApp. Many do not have the technical capacity to actually figure out what is fake or not. And many do not have the time. So, you know, these are the people who are now going online and they are asking, you know, is this fake? Is this fake? Because they do not want to, you know, they do not want their family members somebody to tell you, hey, you powered this fake piece of fake news. Apart from the success of all the news, which I said we are quite jealous of, how else would you see this war against fake news? Let me term it as that. Has seen some success? Do you think it has worked? Apart, as I said, of course, you've been able to successfully expose some of the worst elements that have been there. But do you think the number of sites which won't face such kind of Facebook pages or who promote such fake news has dropped? Do you see the number of people becoming more cautious about fake news? Do you think there is a growth in this respect? The number of fake news sites have actually increased. They have not dropped. Because fake news sites, people have realized that there is a business model in there. There is a way to make money. We have written a story on alt news where we found this website called newspoor.in, which was run, you know, there was a Twitter trend called I support Rohit Sardana, which was a fake trend. People were sort of trending that because it was claimed that Rohit Sardana had five fatwas against him. Rohit Sardana in the evening comes on Twitter and says, there are no fatwas against me. It's a fake news. So then we tracked who actually put that out. And there was this website called newspoor.in. I think they've taken it down now. I mean, the person who was running it has taken it down now. That had put the initial fake news that there is five fatwa. And it became a trending topic for the day. So I wrote that piece. And I said that this is the guy who runs it. There was a Facebook post on his Facebook timeline, which said that he has earned 20,000 rupees that month from advertisement. I put that post. Then three days later, this person contacts me via VIP call, VIP number, and says, I am the guy. And how did you find me, blah, blah, blah. And in a very respectful, very cordial man is calling me bhaiya, et cetera. So then we exchanged phone numbers. And I called him. And it turns out that he was a 12-standard boy who was doing this, earning 40,000 rupees per month. His father was a farmhand in Ranchi, earning 6,000 rupees per month. And he said that I am doing this because I need to study further. And if I put out anything other than fake news, nobody's going to read it. So I put out fake news. He had an ideological leaning. But that was not the driving factor. If he had a different ideological leaning, he would have still done it, according to me. Because he was doing it for money. If you look at a beat reporter or a stringer, and somebody who's new and just graduated, they would probably earn, what, 14,000, 15,000, 20,000 maximum. But here is a boy from 12-standard who runs a website and makes 40,000 a month purely based on fake news. So there's a business model. And this business model has been replicated at various levels. We have put out stories of websites like insistpost.com, I-N-S-I-S-T, et cetera. And they have a full-fledged office, somewhere in Noida, where there are people, proper desks, people working on laptops, creating content, and things like that. We all know about postcard news, et cetera. They also have a staff. Hindutva.info is another website where the guy who runs his name is Rajesh Jindal. He went on to boast about how he wants to create this ecosystem of blogging. While he's himself running a site which puts out tons of fake news, he wants to create an ecosystem of blogging. And in that video, there is a passing screenshot which shows the money in his advertising account, which was $32,000.