#FactCheck - Edited Video Falsely Claims as an attack on PM Netanyahu in the Israeli Senate

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Executive Summery
‍
‍

A video is being widely shared on social media claiming that a man seen working at a brick kiln is an Australian citizen named “Anderson.” The claim states that he lost his passport and all his belongings after a theft in Agra, following which he was forced to work at a brick kiln for survival. Social media users are circulating the video as a shameful incident and are also appealing for the return of his stolen passport and belongings so that he can safely return to his country. CyberPeace Research Wing research found that the viral story is completely false and fabricated. For verification, we first conducted a keyword-based search on Google, but did not find any credible news report or media coverage supporting such an incident. Had this event been true, it would have certainly been reported by mainstream media outlets.

‍

Claim

‍

Facebook user ‘Yadav Roshni’ posted a video on June 23, 2026 (archive link) along with a caption claiming that an Australian tourist named “Anderson” visited Agra (Uttar Pradesh) to explore India’s culture and heritage, but was allegedly robbed during his visit. The post claims that thieves stole his passport, money, and all his belongings, leaving him helpless in a foreign country It further alleges that after losing everything, the tourist was forced to work as a labourer at a brick kiln to survive. The post describes the incident as shameful and appeals to users to widely share the video so that it reaches authorities, and requests that whoever stole his belongings return them so that he can safely return to his home country.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1001213176107998 , https://perma.cc/MB8S-ZD24?type=standard 

Fact Check

‍

We then extracted keyframes from the viral video and performed a Google Lens search. This led us to an Instagram video posted by user sahildeshwal7500 on June 25, 2026. In this video, the person seen in the viral clip is identified as a resident of Katha village in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, named Sahil Deshwal. He himself clarifies in the video that the viral claim is false and that his footage was misused and shared with a fake narrative.

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaAEB7wJkG-/

‍

‍

Further, another Instagram user dipendrakiduniya also posted clarification on June 25, 2026. In the video, the same individual and his brother clearly deny the “Anderson” identity claim and confirm that the viral story is completely false. They state that he is an Indian labourer working at a brick kiln in Baghpat.

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaAZgXtjaYI/

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral claim that an Australian citizen named Anderson lost his passport and belongings in Agra and was forced to work at a brick kiln is completely false. The person seen in the video is a resident of Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. The story circulating on social media is fabricated and misleading.

‍

Introduction

Misinformation has been a significant concern in recent times, especially in the online information landscape. This past month, misinformation has been linked to the communal tensions that have flared up in the North Tripura district. While the law enforcement agencies were quick to respond, misinformation about the law and order situation spread rapidly. Shri Amitabh Ranjanon, Tripura’s Director General of Police, issued a public statement on 21st October 2024, Monday, clarifying “The state's law and order situation has improved, and misinformation is being spread about it”. This instance is a classic example of how misinformation can affect the delivery of good governance to citizens or hamper the relationship between the citizenry and the state mechanisms. Such misinformation undermines the efforts of the law enforcement agencies striving to maintain peace, and distorted narratives can colour public opinion about the authorities and create cycles of misplaced distrust. 

DGP's Statement

DGP Amitabh Ranjanon clarified during an event to commemorate Police Commemoration Day, stating that the state has recorded a lesser number of crimes this year compared to the last 10 years. He emphasized that senior police officials promptly respond to any law and order issues and additional forces have been deployed as necessary. Ranjan highlighted the peaceful celebration of Durga Puja as a testament to the effective law enforcement measures in place, demonstrating communal harmony. 

Impact of Misinformation in communal settings

Misinformation in communal settings can cause anxiety, fear, and distrust among community members, leading to conflicts. It undermines public confidence in law enforcement and government institutions. The spread of false information can erode trust in law enforcement and government bodies, hindering their ability to address and solve conflicts. Therefore, precise data and accurate information are essential in every environment to avoid the harm caused by misinformation. 

Preventive Measures Against Misinformation

1. Look for authenticated sources

In a digital landscape filled with information from various sources, it’s essential to differentiate between credible and unreliable content. Authenticated sources are typically reputable organizations and officials. Users must rely on authenticated sources to ensure the information's accuracy and credibility. Users must verify the source, confirm the claims made in the source by comparing them with other credible sources for accuracy, and follow fact-checking practices.

2. Exercise caution on social media information

Social media platforms can rapidly disseminate information, but they can also serve as breeding grounds for misinformation. The ease of sharing content can lead to the spread of unverified claims, rumours, or even outright falsehoods. Therefore, exercising caution when engaging with information on these platforms is crucial. Users must scrutinize headlines and images as well, especially since misleading images can distort the truth with the advent of AI.  One must always read beyond the headline and check the context of the images used and not make split-second decisions and impressions. Users must engage in critical thinking and share informed opinions responsibly, to promote discussions about the validity of shared content.

3. Role of Awareness

Awareness about misinformation is essential for navigating the complexities of modern communication. People can make better decisions and help create a more informed society by being aware of the strategies used to disseminate false information. Users need to become knowledgeable about typical misinformation strategies, hone their cognitive abilities to critically assess internet content, and verify the reliability of sources before they form opinions, make decisions or share ahead.

Final words

By integrating these simple best practices into our daily lives we can cultivate a more informed public, reduce the spread of online misinformation, and enhance critical thinking skills among peers and the larger digital community.

References

1. https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/national/2024/10/21/cal8-tr-dgp.html
2. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Oct/21/tripura-dgp-says-misinformation-being-spread-about-states-law-and-order-situation
3. https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/tripura/police-inaction-tripura-dgp-amitabh-ranjan-sharp-decline-crime-rate-9632509/
4. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Oct/21/tripura-dgp-says-misinformation-being-spread-about-states-law-and-order-situation

‍