#FactCheck - Fake Graphic Falsely Claims Amit Shah Urged People to Skip Meals Amid Crisis Rumours

Executive Summary

‍

A picture of grenade-style pens is being circulated on social media with the claim that they are actually small bombs responsible for explosions in Gujarat. Users are being warned not to pick up any object resembling the pen, with posts alleging that similar devices are causing blasts in different parts of the state. CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be completely false. The viral image shows a novelty military-style pen, not an explosive device. The same product is listed on the American e-commerce platform Etsy, where it is described as a military tank or grenade-style ink pen that uses refillable ink cartridges.

‍

Claim

‍

The viral image shows five grenade-shaped pens. It is being shared with a caption claiming: “Do not pick up anything that looks like this pen. If you find one lying somewhere, do not touch it. It is a small bomb, and incidents like this are happening wherever such pens are found in Gujarat.”The post also includes photographs of injured individuals to reinforce the claim.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/273456550609813/posts/1721798935775560/

‍

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we first searched for relevant news reports using English and Gujarati keywords. However, we found no credible media reports linking grenade-shaped pens to any explosions in Gujarat. During the search, we came across reports mentioning that certain Khalistani groups had allegedly sent emails threatening blasts in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar. However, none of those reports mentioned grenade-style pens or any similar explosive devices.

‍

‍

We also checked whether Gujarat Police had issued any warning, advisory, or public notice regarding such objects. However, no such advisory was found on any official Gujarat Police social media handle or public platform.

‍

‍

Next, we conducted a reverse image search of the viral photograph. The search led us to a listing on the American e-commerce website Etsy, where the product is described as a “Military Novelty Tank or Grenade Ink Pen.”

https://www.etsy.com/listing/889188479/military-novelty-tank-or-grenade-ink

‍

‍

The product description indicates that it is a novelty writing instrument that uses refillable ink cartridges and is intended purely as a decorative or novelty item. We also reviewed Etsy’s prohibited items policy. According to the platform, weapons, explosives, and other dangerous items are not permitted to be sold on the website.

https://www.etsy.com/legal/prohibited/

‍

‍

Additionally, we attempted to contact Michael Dobbs, associated with the product listing, for clarification. This report will be updated if a response is received.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The evidence gathered during our research clearly shows that the claim is false. The viral image does not depict a bomb but a novelty grenade-style ink pen sold online. There is no evidence that such pens are causing explosions in Gujarat, and the claim being circulated on social media is entirely misleading.

‍

Introduction

‍

We inhabit an era where digital connectivity, while empowering, has also unleashed a relentless tide of cyber vulnerabilities, where personal privacy is constantly threatened, and crimes like sextortion are the perfect example of the sinister side of our hyperconnected world. Social media platforms, instant messaging apps, and digital content-sharing tools have all grown rapidly, changing how people communicate with one another and making it harder to distinguish between the private and public domains. The rise of sophisticated cybercrimes that use the very tools meant to connect us is the price paid for this unparalleled convenience. Sextortion, a portmanteau of “sex’ and “extortion”, stands out among them as a particularly pernicious kind of internet exploitation. Under the threat of disclosing their private information, photos, or videos, people are forced to engage in sexual behaviours or provide intimate content. Sextortion’s psychological component is what makes it particularly harmful, it feeds on social stigma, shame, and fear, which discourage victims from reporting the crime and feed the cycle of victimisation and silence. This cybercrime targets vulnerable people from all socioeconomic backgrounds and is not limited by age, gender, or location. 

‍

The Economy of Shame: Sextortion as a Cybercrime Industry

‍

A news report from June 03, 2025, reveals a sextortion racket busted in Delhi, where a money trail of over Rs. 5 crore was identified by different teams of the Crime branch. From synthetic financial identities to sextortion and other cyber frauds, a recipe for a sophisticated cybercrime chain was found. To believe this is an aberration is to overlook the reality that it is symptomatic of a much wider and largely uncharted criminal framework. According to the FBI’s 2024 IC3 report, “extortion (including sextortion)” has skyrocketed to 86,415 complaints with losses of $143 million reported in the United States (US) alone. This indicates that coercive image-based threats are no longer an isolated cybercrime but an everyday occurrence. Sextortion is no longer an isolated cybercrime; it has metamorphosed into a systematic, industrialised criminal enterprise. Another news report dated 19th July, 2025, where Delhi Police has detained four people suspected of participating in a sextortion scheme that targeted a resident of the Bhagwanpur Khera neighbourhood of Shahdara. The suspected people were allegedly arrested on a complaint wherein the victim was manipulated and fell prey to a dating site. 

The threat is amplified by the usage of deepfake technology, which allows offenders to create obscene content that looks believable. The approach, which relies on the stigma attached to sexual imagery in conservative societies like India, is that victims frequently give in to requests out of fear of damaging their reputations. The combination of cybercrime and cutting-edge technology highlights the lopsided power that criminals possess, leaving victims defenceless and law enforcement unable to keep up. 

‍

Legal Remedies and the Evolving Battle Against Sextortion

‍

Given the complexity of these crimes, India has recognised sextortion and similar cyber-enabled financial crimes under a number of legal frameworks. A change to recognising cyber-enabled sexual exploitation as an organised criminal business is shown by the introduction of specific provisions like Section 111 in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which classifies organised cybercrimes including extortion and frauds which fall under its expansive interpretation, as a serious offence. Similarly, Section 318 (2) criminalises cheating with a maximum sentence of three years in prison or a fine, whereas Section 336 (2) makes digital forgery a crime with a maximum sentence with a maximum sentence of two years in prison or a fine. In addition to these regulations, cheating by personation through computer resources is punishable by the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66D, which carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a maximum fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Due to issues with attribution, cross-border jurisdiction, and the discreet nature of digital evidence, enforcement is still inconsistent even with current statutory restrictions. 

The government and its agencies recognise that laws achieve real impact only when backed by awareness initiatives and accessible, localised mechanisms for redressal. Several Indian states and the Department of Telecommunications launched numerous campaigns to educate the public about and safeguard their mobile communication assets against identity theft, financial fraud, and cyberscams. Initiatives like Cyber Saathi Initiative and Cyber Dost by MHA, with the goal of improving forensic and victim reporting skills.

‍

Conclusion

‍

At CyberPeace, we understand that the best defence against online abuse is prevention. Our goal is to provide people with the information and resources to identify, avoid and report sextortion attempts like CyberPeace Helpline and organise awareness campaigns on safe digital habits. In order to remain updated with the constantly looming danger, our research and policy advocacy also focus on developing more robust legal and technological safeguards. 

To every reader: think before you share, secure your accounts, and never let shame silence you. If you or someone you know becomes a victim, report it immediately, help is available, and justice is possible. Together we can reclaim the internet as a space of trust, not terror. 

‍

References 

‍

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-police-busts-sextortion-cyberfraud-rackets-6-held-101748959601825.html 
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-police-arrests-four-for-sextortion-and-blackmail-in-shahdara/articleshow/122767656.cms ‍
• https://cdn.ncw.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/CyberSaheli.pdf

Introduction

A Reuters investigation has uncovered an elephant in the room regarding Meta Platforms' internal measures to address online fraud and illicit advertising. The confidential documents that Reuters reviewed disclosed that Meta was planning to generate approximately 10% of its 2024 revenue, i.e., USD 16 billion, from ads related to scams and prohibited goods. The findings point out a disturbing paradox: on the one hand, Meta is a vocal advocate for digital safety and platform integrity, while on the other hand, the internal logs of the company indicate the existence of a very large area allowing the shunning of fraudulent advertisement activities that exploit users throughout the world. 

‍

The Scale of the Problem

Internal Meta projections show that its platforms, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, are displaying a staggering 15 billion scam ads per day combined. The advertisements include deceitful e-commerce promotions, fake investment schemes, counterfeit medical products, and unlicensed gambling platforms.

Meta has developed sophisticated detection tools, but even then, the system does not catch the advertisers until they are 95% certain to be fraudsters. By having at least that threshold for removing an ad, the company is unlikely to lose much money. As a result, instead of turning the fraud adjacent advertisers down, it charges them higher ad rates, which is the strategy they call “penalty bids” internally. 

‍

Internal Acknowledgements & Business Dependence

Internal documents that date between 2021 and 2025 reveal that the financial, safety, and lobbying divisions of Meta were cognizant of the enormity of revenues generated from scams. One of the 2025 strategic papers even describes this revenue source as "violating revenue," which implies that it includes ads that are against Meta's policies regarding scams, gambling, sexual services, and misleading healthcare products.

‍

The company's top executives consider the cost-benefit scenario of stricter enforcement. According to a 2024 internal projection, Meta's half-yearly earnings from high-risk scam ads were estimated at USD 3.5 billion, whereas regulatory fines for such violations would not exceed USD 1 billion, thus making it a tolerable trade-off from a commercial viewpoint. At the same time, the company intends to scale down scam ad revenue gradually, thus from 10.1% in 2024 to 7.3% by 2025, and 6% by 2026; however, the documents also reveal a planned slowdown in enforcement to avoid "abrupt reductions" that could affect business forecasts.

‍

Algorithmic Amplification of Scams

One of the most alarming situations is the fact that Meta's own advertising algorithms amplify scam content. It has been reported that users who click on fraudulent ads are more likely to see other similar ads, as the platform's personalisation engine assumes user "interest."

This scenario creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop where the user engagement with scam content dictates the amount of such content being displayed. Thus, a digital environment is created which encourages deceptive engagement and consequently, user trust is eroded and systemic risk is amplified.

An internal presentation in May 2025 was said to put a number on how deeply the platform's ad ecosystem was intertwined with the global fraud economy, estimating that one-third of the scams that succeeded in the U.S. were due to advertising on Meta's platforms.

‍

Regulatory & Legal Implications

The disclosures arrived at the same time as the US and UK governments started to closely check the company's activities more than ever before.

• The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is said to be looking into whether Meta has had any part in the promotion of fraudulent financial ads.
• The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found that Meta’s platforms were the main sources of scams related to online payments and claimed that the amount of money lost was more than all the other social platforms combined in 2023.

Meta’s spokesperson, Andy Stone, at first denied the accusations, stating that the figures mentioned in the leak were “rough and overly-inclusive”; nevertheless, he conceded that the company’s consistent efforts toward enforcement had negatively impacted revenue and would continue to do so.

‍

Operational Challenges & Policy Gaps

The internal documents also reveal the weaknesses in Meta's day-to-day operations when it comes to the implementation of its own policies.

• Because of the large number of employees laid off in 2023, the whole department that dealt with advertiser-brand impersonation was said to have been dissolved.
• Scam ads were categorised as a "low severity" issue, which was more of a "bad user experience" than a critical security risk.
• At the end of 2023, users were submitting around 100,000 legitimate scam reports per week, of which Meta dismissed or rejected 96%.

‍

Human Impact: When Fraud Becomes Personal

The financial and ethical issues have tangible human consequences. The Reuters investigation documented multiple cases of individuals defrauded through hijacked Meta accounts.

One striking example involves a Canadian Air Force recruiter, whose hacked Facebook account was used to promote fake cryptocurrency schemes. Despite over a hundred user reports, Meta failed to act for weeks, during which several victims, including military colleagues, lost tens of thousands of dollars.

The case underscores not just platform negligence, but also the difficulty of law enforcement collaboration. Canadian authorities confirmed that funds traced to Nigerian accounts could not be recovered due to jurisdictional barriers, a recurring issue in transnational cyber fraud.

‍

Ethical and Cybersecurity Implications

The research has questioned extremely important things at least from the perspective of cyber policy:

1. Platform Accountability: Meta, by its practice, is giving more importance to the monetary aspect rather than the truth, and in this way, it is going against the principles of responsible digital governance.
2. Transparency in Ad Ecosystems: The lack of transparency in digital advertising systems makes it very easy for dishonest actors to use automated processes with very little supervision.
3. Algorithmic Responsibility: The use of algorithms that impact the visibility of misleading content and targeting can be considered the direct involvement of the algorithms in the fraud.
4. Regulatory Harmonisation: The presence of different and disconnected enforcement frameworks across jurisdictions is a drawback to the efforts in dealing with cross-border cybercrime.
5. Public Trust: Users’ trust in the digital world is mainly dependent on the safety level they see and the accountability of the companies.

‍

Conclusion

Meta’s records show a very unpleasant mix of profit, laxity, and failure in the policy area concerning scam-related ads. The platform’s readiness to accept and even profit from fraudulent players, though admitting the damage they cause, calls for an immediate global rethinking of advertising ethics, regulatory enforcement, and algorithmic transparency.

With the expansion of its AI-driven operations and advertising networks, protecting the users of Meta must evolve from being just a public relations goal to being a core business necessity, thus requiring verifiable accountability measures, independent audits, and regulatory oversight. It is an undeniable fact that there are billions of users who count on Meta’s platforms for their right to digital safety, which is why this right must be respected and enforced rather than becoming optional.

‍

References

• https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/leaked-docs-claim-meta-made-16-billion-from-scam-ads-even-after-deleting-134-million-of-them-2815183-2025-11-07

‍