#FactCheck - Viral Post of Gautam Adani’s Public Arrest Found to Be AI-Generated

Executive Summary:

‍

A viral social media video falsely claims that Meta AI reads all WhatsApp group and individual chats by default, and that enabling “Advanced Chat Privacy” can stop this. On performing  reverse image search we found a blog post of WhatsApp which was posted in the month of April 2025 which claims that all personal and group chats remain protected with end to end (E2E) encryption, accessible only to the sender and recipient. Meta AI can interact only with messages explicitly sent to it or tagged with @MetaAI. The “Advanced Chat Privacy” feature is designed to prevent external sharing of chats, not to restrict Meta AI access. Therefore, the viral claim is misleading and factually incorrect, aimed at creating unnecessary fear among users.

‍

Claim:

‍

A viral social media video [archived link] alleges that Meta AI is actively accessing private conversations on WhatsApp, including both group and individual chats, due to the current default settings. The video further claims that users can safeguard their privacy by enabling the “Advanced Chat Privacy” feature, which purportedly prevents such access.

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

‍

Upon doing reverse image search from the keyframe of the viral video, we found a WhatsApp blog post from April 2025 that explains new privacy features to help users control their chats and data. It states that Meta AI can only see messages directly sent to it or tagged with @Meta AI. All personal and group chats are secured with end-to-end encryption, so only the sender and receiver can read them. The "Advanced Chat Privacy" setting helps stop chats from being shared outside WhatsApp, like blocking exports or auto-downloads, but it doesn’t affect Meta AI since it’s already blocked from reading chats. This shows the viral claim is false and meant to confuse people.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion: 

‍

The claim that Meta AI is reading WhatsApp Group Chats and that enabling the "Advance Chat Privacy" setting can prevent this is false and misleading. WhatsApp has officially confirmed that Meta AI only accesses messages explicitly shared with it, and all chats remain protected by end-to-end encryption, ensuring privacy. The "Advanced Chat Privacy" setting does not relate to Meta AI access, as it is already restricted by default.

‍

• Claim: Viral social media video claims that WhatsApp Group Chats are being read by Meta AI due to current settings, and enabling the "Advance Chat Privacy" setting can prevent this.
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

Introduction 

The link between social media and misinformation is undeniable. Misinformation, particularly the kind that evokes emotion, spreads like wildfire on social media and has serious consequences, like undermining democratic processes, discrediting science, and promulgating hateful discourses which may incite physical violence. If left unchecked, misinformation propagated through social media has the potential to incite social disorder, as seen in countless ethnic clashes worldwide.  This is why social media platforms have been under growing pressure to combat misinformation and have been developing models such as fact-checking services and community notes to check its spread. This article explores the pros and cons of the models and evaluates their broader implications for online information integrity.

How the Models Work 

1. Third-Party Fact-Checking Model (formerly used by Meta) Meta initiated this program in 2016 after claims of extraterritorial election tampering through dis/misinformation on its platforms. It entered partnerships with third-party organizations like AFP and specialist sites like Lead Stories and PolitiFact, which are certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) for meeting neutrality, independence, and editorial quality standards. These fact-checkers identify misleading claims that go viral on platforms and publish verified articles on their websites, providing correct information. They also submit this to Meta through an interface, which may link the fact-checked article to the social media post that contains factually incorrect claims. The post then gets flagged for false or misleading content, and a link to the article appears under the post for users to refer to. This content will be demoted in the platform algorithm, though not removed entirely unless it violates Community Standards. However, in January 2025, Meta announced it was scrapping this program and beginning to test X’s Community Notes Model in the USA, before rolling it out in the rest of the world. It alleges that the independent fact-checking model is riddled with personal biases, lacks transparency in decision-making, and has evolved into a censoring tool. 
2. Community Notes Model ( Used by X and being tested by Meta): This model relies on crowdsourced contributors who can sign up for the program, write contextual notes on posts and rate the notes made by other users on X. The platform uses a bridging algorithm to display those notes publicly, which receive cross-ideological consensus from voters across the political spectrum. It does this by boosting those notes that receive support despite the political leaning of the voters, which it measures through their engagements with previous notes. The benefit of this system is that it is less likely for biases to creep into the flagging mechanism. Further, the process is relatively more transparent than an independent fact-checking mechanism since all Community Notes contributions are publicly available for inspection, and the ranking algorithm can be accessed by anyone, allowing for external evaluation of the system by anyone. 

CyberPeace Insights

Meta’s uptake of a crowdsourced model signals social media’s shift toward decentralized content moderation, giving users more influence in what gets flagged and why. However, the model’s reliance on diverse agreements can be a time-consuming process. A study (by Wirtschafter & Majumder, 2023) shows that only about 12.5 per cent of all submitted notes are seen by the public, making most misleading content go unchecked. Further, many notes on divisive issues like politics and elections may not see the light of day since reaching a consensus on such topics is hard. This means that many misleading posts may not be publicly flagged at all, thereby hindering risk mitigation efforts. This casts aspersions on the model’s ability to check the virality of posts which can have adverse societal impacts, especially on vulnerable communities. On the other hand, the fact-checking model suffers from a lack of transparency, which has damaged user trust and led to allegations of bias. 

Since both models have their advantages and disadvantages, the future of misinformation control will require a hybrid approach. Data accuracy and polarization through social media are issues bigger than an exclusive tool or model can effectively handle. Thus, platforms can combine expert validation with crowdsourced input to allow for accuracy, transparency, and scalability. 

Conclusion 

Meta’s shift to a crowdsourced model of fact-checking is likely to have bigger implications on public discourse since social media platforms hold immense power in terms of how their policies affect politics, the economy, and societal relations at large.  This change comes against the background of sweeping cost-cutting in the tech industry, political changes in the USA and abroad, and increasing attempts to make Big Tech platforms more accountable in jurisdictions like the EU and Australia, which are known for their welfare-oriented policies. These co-occurring contestations are likely to inform the direction the development of misinformation-countering tactics will take.  Until then, the crowdsourcing model is still in development, and its efficacy is yet to be seen, especially regarding polarizing topics. 

References 

• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/new-youtube-notes-feature-to-help-users-add-context-to-videos
• https://en-gb.facebook.com/business/help/315131736305613?id=673052479947730
• http://techxplore.com/news/2025-01-meta-fact.html 
• https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/ 
• https://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/about/introduction 
• https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/01/14/do-community-notes-work/?utm_source=chatgpt.com 
• https://www.techpolicy.press/community-notes-and-its-narrow-understanding-of-disinformation/ 
• https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/metas-shift-to-community-notes-model-proves-that-we-can-fix-big-problems-without-big-government/ 
• https://tsjournal.org/index.php/jots/article/view/139/57 

‍

Introduction

Recently, a Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services was published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The paper explores several OTT regulation-related challenges and solicits input from stakeholders on a suggested regulatory framework. We’ll summarise the paper’s main conclusions in this blog.

Structure of the Paper

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services and Selective Banning of OTT Services intends to solicit comments and recommendations from stakeholders about the regulation of OTT services in India. The paper is broken up into five chapters that cover the introduction and background, issues with regulatory mechanisms for OTT communication services, issues with the selective banning of OTT services, a summary of the issues for consultation, and an overview of international practices on the topic. Written comments from interested parties are requested and may be sent electronically to the Advisor (Networks, Spectrum and Licencing) at TRAI. These comments will also be posted on the TRAI website.

Overview of the Paper

• Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

• The first chapter of the essay introduces the subject of OTT communication services and argues why regulatory frameworks are necessary. The chapter also gives a general outline of the topics and the paper’s organisation that will be covered in the following chapters.

• Chapter 2: Examination of the Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top Communication Services

• The second chapter of the essay looks at the problems with OTT communication service regulation. It talks about the many kinds of OTT services and how they affect the conventional telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the regulatory issues raised by OTT services and the various strategies used by various nations to address them.

• Chapter 3: Examination of the Issues Related to Selective Banning of OTT Services

• The final chapter of the essay looks at the problems of selectively outlawing OTT services. It analyses the justifications for government restrictions on OTT services as well as the possible effects of such restrictions on consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the legal and regulatory structures that determine how OTT services are prohibited in various nations.

• Chapter 4: International Practices

• An overview of global OTT communication service best practices is given in the paper’s fourth chapter. It talks about the various regulatory strategies used by nations throughout the world and how they affect consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the difficulties regulators encounter when trying to create efficient regulatory frameworks for OTT services.

• Chapter 5: Issues for Consultation

• This chapter is the spirit of the consultation paper as it covers the points and questions for consultation. This chapter has been classified into two sub-sections – Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanisms for OTT Communication Services and Issues Related to the Selective Banning of OTT Services. The inputs will be entirely focused on these sub headers, and the scope, extent, and ambit of the consultation paper rests on these questions and necessary inputs.

Conclusion

An important publication that aims to address the regulatory issues raised by OTT services is the Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top Communication Services. The paper offers a thorough analysis of the problems with OTT service regulation and requests input from stakeholders on the suggested regulatory structure. In order to make sure that the regulatory framework is efficient and advantageous for everyone, it is crucial for all stakeholders to offer their opinion on the document.