#FactCheck - Old Video Misleadingly Claimed as Footage of Iranian President Before Crash

Introduction

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has sparked intense debates and concerns about its potential impact on humanity. Sam Altman, CEO of AI research laboratory OpenAI, and Altman, known as the father of ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, hold a complex position, recognising both the existential risks AI poses and its potential benefits. In a world tour to raise awareness about AI risks, Altman advocates for global cooperation to establish responsible guidelines for AI development. Artificial intelligence has become a topic of increasing interest and concern as technology advances. Developing sophisticated AI systems raises many ethical questions, including whether they will ultimately save or destroy humanity.

Addressing Concerns

Altman engages with various stakeholders, including protesters who voice concerns about the race toward artificial general intelligence (AGI). Critics argue that focusing on safety rather than pushing AGI development would be a more responsible approach. Altman acknowledges the importance of safety progress but believes capability progress is necessary to ensure safety. He advocates for a global regulatory framework similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would coordinate research efforts, establish safety standards, monitor computing power dedicated to AI training, and possibly restrict specific approaches.

Risks of AI Systems

While AI holds tremendous promise, it also presents risks that must be carefully considered. One of the major concerns is the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) without sufficient safety precautions. AGI systems with unchecked capabilities could potentially pose existential risks to humanity if they surpass human intelligence and become difficult to control. These risks include the concentration of power, misuse of technology, and potential for unintended consequences.

There are also fears surrounding AI systems’ impact on employment. As machines become more intelligent and capable of performing complex tasks, there is a risk that many jobs will become obsolete. This could lead to widespread unemployment and economic instability if steps are not taken to prepare for this shift in the labour market.

While these risks are certainly caused for concern, it is important to remember that AI systems also have tremendous potential to do good in the world. By carefully designing these technologies with ethics and human values in mind, we can mitigate many of the risks while still reaping the benefits of this exciting new frontier in technology.

Open AI Systems and Chatbots

Open AI systems like ChatGPT and chatbots have gained popularity due to their ability to engage in natural language conversations. However, they also come with risks. The reliance on large-scale training data can lead to biases, misinformation, and unethical use of AI. Ensuring open AI systems’ safety and responsible development mitigates potential harm and maintains public trust.

The Need for Global Cooperation

Sam Altman and other tech leaders emphasise the need for global cooperation to address the risks associated with AI development. They advocate for establishing a global regulatory framework for superintelligence. Superintelligence refers to AGI operating at an exceptionally advanced level, capable of solving complex problems that have eluded human comprehension. Such a framework would coordinate research efforts, enforce safety standards, monitor computing power, and potentially restrict specific approaches. International collaboration is essential to ensure responsible and beneficial AI development while minimising the risks of misuse or unintended consequences.

Can AI Systems Make the World a Better Place: Benefits of AI Systems

AI systems hold many benefits that can greatly improve human life. One of the most significant advantages of AI is its ability to process large amounts of data at a rapid pace. In industries such as healthcare, this has allowed for faster diagnoses and more effective treatments. Another benefit of AI systems is their capacity to learn and adapt over time. This allows for more personalised experiences in areas such as customer service, where AI-powered chatbots can provide tailored solutions based on an individual’s needs. Additionally, AI can potentially increase efficiency in various industries, from manufacturing to transportation. By automating repetitive tasks, human workers can focus on higher-level tasks that require creativity and problem-solving skills. Overall, the benefits of AI systems are numerous and promising for improving human life in various ways.

We must remember the impact of AI on education. It has already started to show its potential by providing personalised learning experiences for students at all levels. With the help of AI-driven systems like intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), adaptive learning technologies (ALT), and educational chatbots, students can learn at their own pace without feeling overwhelmed or left behind.

While there are certain risks associated with the development of AI systems, there are also numerous opportunities for them to make our world a better place. By harnessing the power of these technologies for good, we can create a brighter future for ourselves and generations to come.

Conclusion

The AI revolution presents both extraordinary opportunities and significant challenges for humanity. The benefits of AI, when developed responsibly, have the potential to uplift societies, improve quality of life, and address long-standing global issues. However, the risks associated with AGI demand careful attention and international cooperation. Governments, researchers, and industry leaders must work together to establish guidelines, safety measures, and ethical standards to navigate the path toward AI systems that serve humanity’s best interests and safeguard against potential risks. By taking a balanced approach, we can strive for a future where AI systems save humanity rather than destroy it.

Executive Summary:

A misleading video of a child covered in ash allegedly circulating as the evidence for attacks against Hindu minorities in Bangladesh. However, the  investigation revealed that the video is actually from Gaza, Palestine, and was filmed following an Israeli airstrike in July 2024. The claim linking the video to Bangladesh is false and misleading.

Claims:

A viral video claims to show a child in Bangladesh covered in ash as evidence of attacks on Hindu minorities.

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the viral posts, we conducted a Google Lens search on keyframes of the video, which led us to a X post posted by Quds News Network. The report identified the video as footage from Gaza, Palestine, specifically capturing the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on the Nuseirat refugee camp in July 2024.

The caption of the post reads, “Journalist Hani Mahmoud reports on the deadly Israeli attack yesterday which targeted a UN school in Nuseirat, killing at least 17 people who were sheltering inside and injuring many more.”

‍

To further verify, we examined the video footage where the watermark of Al Jazeera News media could be seen, We found the same post posted on the Instagram account on 14 July, 2024 where we confirmed that the child in the video had survived a massacre caused by the Israeli airstrike on a school shelter in Gaza. 

‍

Additionally, we found the same video uploaded to CBS News' YouTube channel, where it was clearly captioned as "Video captures aftermath of Israeli airstrike in Gaza",  further confirming its true origin.

‍

We found no credible reports or evidence were found linking this video to any incidents in Bangladesh. This clearly implies that the viral video was falsely attributed to Bangladesh. 

Conclusion:

The video circulating on social media which shows a child covered in ash as the evidence of attack against Hindu minorities is false and misleading. The investigation leads that the video originally originated from Gaza, Palestine and documents the aftermath of an Israeli air strike in July 2024.  

• Claims: A video shows a child in Bangladesh covered in ash as evidence of attacks on Hindu minorities.
• Claimed by: Facebook
• Fact Check: False & Misleading

Introduction

Global cybersecurity spending is expected to breach USD 210 billion in 2025, a ~10% increase from 2024 (Gartner). This is a result of an evolving and increasingly critical threat landscape enabled by factors such as the proliferation of IoT devices, the adoption of cloud networks, and the increasing size of the internet itself.  Yet, breaches, misuse, and resistance persist. In 2025, global attack pressure rose ~21% Y-o-Y ( Q2 averages) (CheckPoint) and confirmed breaches climbed ~15%( Verizon DBIR). This means that rising investment in cybersecurity may not be yielding proportionate reductions in risk. But while mechanisms to strengthen technical defences and regulatory frameworks are constantly evolving, the social element of trust and how to embed it into cybersecurity systems remain largely overlooked.   

‍

Human Error and Digital Trust  (Individual Trust) 

‍

Human error is consistently recognised as the weakest link in cybersecurity. While campaigns focusing on phishing prevention, urging password updates and using two-factor authentication (2FA) exist, relying solely on awareness measures to address human error in cyberspace is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Rather, it needs to be examined through the lens of digital trust. As Chui (2022) notes, digital trust rests on security,  dependability, integrity, and authenticity. These factors determine whether users comply with cybersecurity protocols. When people view rules as opaque, inconvenient, or imposed without accountability, they are more likely to cut corners, which creates vulnerabilities. Therefore, building digital trust means shifting from blaming people to design: embedding transparency, usability, and shared responsibility towards a culture of cybersecurity so that users are incentivised to make secure choices. 

‍

Organisational Trust and Insider Threats (Institutional Trust)

At the organisational level, compliance with cybersecurity protocols is significantly tied to whether employees trust employers/platforms to safeguard their data and treat them with integrity. Insider threats, stemming from both malicious and non-malicious actors, account for nearly 60% of all corporate breaches (Verizon DBIR 2024). A lack of trust in leadership may cause employees to feel disengaged or even act maliciously.  Further, a 2022 study by Harvard Business Review finds that adhering to cybersecurity protocols adds to employee workload. When they are perceived as hindering productivity, employees are more likely to intentionally violate these protocols.  The stress of working under surveillance systems that feel cumbersome or unreasonable, especially when working remotely, also reduces employee trust and, hence, compliance.  

‍

Trust, Inequality, and Vulnerability (Structural Trust)

Cyberspace encompasses a social system of its own since it involves patterned interactions and relationships between human beings. It also reproduces the social structures and resultant vulnerabilities of the physical world. As a result,  different sections of society place varying levels of trust in digital systems.  Women, rural, and marginalised groups often distrust existing digital security provisions more, and with reason. They are targeted disproportionately by cyber attackers, and yet are underprotected by systems, since these are designed prioritising urban/ male/ elite users.  This leads to citizens adopting workarounds like password sharing for “safety” and disengaging from cyber safety discourse, as they find existing systems inaccessible or irrelevant to their realities. Cybersecurity governance that ignores these divides deepens exclusion and mistrust.

‍

Laws and Compliances (Regulatory Trust)

Cybersecurity governance is operationalised in the form of laws, rules, and guidelines. However, these may often backfire due to inadequate design, reducing overall trust in governance mechanisms. For example, CERT-In’s mandate to report breaches within six hours of “noticing” it has been criticised as the steep timeframe being insufficient to generate an effective breach analysis report. Further, the multiplicity of regulatory frameworks in cross-border interactions can be costly and lead to compliance fatigue for organisations. Such factors can undermine organisational and user trust in the regulation’s ability to protect them from cyber attacks, fuelling a check-box-ticking culture for cybersecurity.  

‍

Conclusion 

Cybersecurity is addressed primarily through code, firewall, and compliance today. But evidence suggests that technological and regulatory fixes, while essential, are insufficient to guarantee secure behaviour and resilient systems. Without trust in institutions, technologies, laws or each other, cybersecurity governance will remain a cat-and-mouse game.  Building a trust-based architecture requires mechanisms to improve accountability, reliability, and transparency.  It requires participatory designs of security systems and the recognition of unequal vulnerabilities. Thus, unless cybersecurity governance acknowledges that cyberspace is deeply social,  investment may not be able to prevent the harms it seeks to curb. 

‍

References 

• https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-07-29
• https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/global-cyber-attacks-surge-21-in-q2-2025
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2025-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://insights2techinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Building-Digital-Trust-Challenges-and-Strategies-in-Cybersecurity.pdf 
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cyberviolence/cyberviolence-against-women 
• https://www.upguard.com/blog/indias-6-hour-data-breach-reporting-rule 

‍