#FactCheck - Viral Video Misrepresented as Reaction to Pakistan’s Defeat in T20 World Cup
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media with the claim that Baloch people celebrated by dancing after Pakistan’s crushing defeat to India in the T20 World Cup. However, research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The video is actually from a Lohri celebration held on January 23 at Government College University in Lahore, and is unrelated to any cricket match. India defeated Pakistan by 61 runs in the T20 World Cup 2026 match held in Colombo last Sunday. India scored 175 runs for the loss of seven wickets in 20 overs, while Pakistan were bowled out for 114 runs in 18 overs.
Claim
The 30-second video was shared on X with the caption, “Baloch people celebrate India’s victory.” The footage shows a group of men dressed in traditional attire dancing around a fire, while a large crowd gathers around and applauds.
Fact Check
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, key frames from the video were extracted and subjected to reverse image search. The search led to an Instagram post uploaded on January 26, 2026, by an account associated with Government College University Lahore. The caption described the performance as a Balochistan cultural dance held at the university’s amphitheatre.
Further research also uncovered another video of the same event, recorded from a different angle and uploaded on January 24, 2026, on Instagram. The caption again confirmed that the event took place at Government College University Lahore.
Conclusion
The evidence confirms that the viral video does not show Baloch people celebrating Pakistan’s defeat in the T20 World Cup. Instead, it depicts a cultural dance performance during a Lohri celebration at Government College University Lahore, and has been shared with a misleading claim.
Related Blogs
A video circulating widely on social media shows a child throwing stones at a moving train, while a few other children can also be seen climbing onto the engine. The video is being shared with a communal narrative, with claims that the incident took place in India.
Cyber Peace Foundation’s research found the viral claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the video is not from India, but from Bangladesh, and is being falsely linked to India on social media.
Claim:
On January 15, 2026, a Facebook user shared the viral video claiming it depicted an incident from India. The post carried a provocative caption stating, “We are not afraid of Pakistan outside our borders. We are afraid of the thousands of mini-Pakistans within India.” The post has been widely circulated, amplifying communal sentiments.
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the video, we conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens by extracting keyframes from the viral clip. During this process, we found the same video uploaded on a Bangladeshi Facebook account named AL Amin Babukhali on December 28, 2025. The caption of the original post mentions Kamalapur, which is a well-known railway station in Bangladesh. This strongly indicates that the incident did not occur in India.
Further analysis of the video shows that the train engine carries the marking “BR”, along with text written in the Bengali language. “BR” stands for Bangladesh Railways, confirming the origin of the train. To corroborate this further, we searched for images related to Bangladesh Railways using Google’s open tools. We found multiple images on Getty Images showing train engines with the same design and markings as seen in the viral video. The visual match clearly establishes that the train belongs to Bangladesh Railways.
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the viral video is from Bangladesh, not India. It is being shared on social media with a false and misleading claim to give it a communal angle and link it to India.
Introduction
In 2025, the internet is entering a new paradigm and it is hard not to witness it. The internet as we know it is rapidly changing into a treasure trove of hyper-optimised material over which vast bot armies battle to the death, thanks to the amazing advancements in artificial intelligence. All of that advancement, however, has a price, primarily in human lives. It turns out that releasing highly personalised chatbots on a populace that is already struggling with economic stagnation, terminal loneliness, and the ongoing destruction of our planet isn’t exactly a formula for improved mental health. This is the truth of 75% of the kids and teen population who have had chats with chatbot-generated fictitious characters. AI, or artificial intelligence, Chatbots are becoming more and more integrated into our daily lives, assisting us with customer service, entertainment, healthcare, and education. But as the impact of these instruments grows, accountability and moral behaviour become more important. An investigation of the internal policies of a major international tech firm last year exposed alarming gaps: AI chatbots were allowed to create content with child romantic roleplaying, racially discriminatory reasoning, and spurious medical claims. Although the firm has since amended aspects of these rules, the exposé underscores an underlying global dilemma - how can we regulate AI to maintain child safety, guard against misinformation, and adhere to ethical considerations without suppressing innovation?
The Guidelines and Their Gaps
The tech giants like Meta and Google are often reprimanded for overlooking Child Safety and the overall increase in Mental health issues in children and adolescents. According to reports, Google introduced Gemini AI kids, a kid-friendly version of its Gemini AI chatbot, which represents a major advancement in the incorporation of generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) into early schooling. Users under the age of thirteen can use supervised accounts on the Family Link app to access this version of Gemini AI Kids.
AI operates on the premise of data collection and analysis. To safeguard children’s personal information in the digital world, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) introduces particular safeguards. According to Section 9, before processing the data of children, who are defined as people under the age of 18, Data Fiduciaries, entities that decide the goals and methods of processing personal data, must get verified consent from a parent or legal guardian. Furthermore, the Act expressly forbids processing activities that could endanger a child’s welfare, such as behavioural surveillance and child-targeted advertising. According to court interpretations, a child's well-being includes not just medical care but also their moral, ethical, and emotional growth.
While the DPDP Act is a big start in the right direction, there are still important lacunae in how it addresses AI and Child Safety. Age-gating systems, thorough risk rating, and limitations specific to AI-driven platforms are absent from the Act, which largely concentrates on consent and damage prevention in data protection. Furthermore, it ignores the threats to children’s emotional safety or the long-term psychological effects of interacting with generative AI models. Current safeguards are self-regulatory in nature and dispersed across several laws, such as the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. These include platform disclaimers, technology-based detection of child-sexual abuse content, and measures under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Child Safety and AI
- The Risks of Romantic Roleplay - Enabling chatbots to engage in romantic roleplaying with youngsters is among the most concerning discoveries. These interactions can result in grooming, psychological trauma, and relaxation to inappropriate behaviour, even if they are not explicitly sexual. Having illicit or sexual conversations with kids in cyberspace is unacceptable, according to child protection experts. However, permitting even "flirtatious" conversation could normalise risky boundaries.
- International Standards and Best Practices - The concept of "safety by design" is highly valued in child online safety guidelines from around the world, including UNICEF's Child Online Protection Guidelines and the UK's Online Safety Bill. This mandating of platforms and developers to proactively remove risks, not reactively to respond to harms, is the bare minimum standard that any AI guidelines must meet if they provide loopholes for child-directed roleplay.
Misinformation and Racism in AI Outputs
- The Disinformation Dilemma - The regulations also allowed AI to create fictional narratives with disclaimers. For example, chatbots were able to write articles promulgating false health claims or smears against public officials, as long as they were labelled as "untrue." While disclaimers might give thin legal cover, they add to the proliferation of misleading information. Indeed, misinformation tends to spread extensively because users disregard caveat labels in favour of provocative assertions.
- Ethical Lines and Discriminatory Content - It is ethically questionable to allow AI systems to generate racist arguments, even when requested. Though scholarly research into prejudice and bias may necessitate such examples, unregulated generation has the potential to normalise damaging stereotypes. Researchers warn that such practice brings platforms from being passive hosts of offensive speech to active generators of discriminatory content. It is a difference that makes a difference, as it places responsibility squarely on developers and corporations.
The Broader Governance Challenge
- Corporate Responsibility and AI Material generated by AI is not equivalent to user speech—it is a direct reflection of corporate training, policy decisions, and system engineering. This fact requires a greater level of accountability. Although companies can update guidelines following public criticism, that there were such allowances in the first place indicates a lack of strong ethical regulation.
- Regulatory Gaps Regulatory regimes for AI are currently in disarray. The EU AI Act, the OECD AI Principles, and national policies all emphasise human rights, transparency, and accountability. The few, though, specify clear guidelines for content risks such as child roleplay or hate narratives. This absence of harmonised international rules leaves companies acting in the shadows, establishing their own limits until contradicted.
An active way forward would include
- Express Child Protection Requirements: AI systems must categorically prohibit interactions with children involving flirting or romance.
- Misinformation Protections: Generative AI must not be allowed to generate knowingly false material, disclaimers being irrelevant.
- Bias Reduction: Developers need to proactively train systems against generating discriminatory accounts, not merely tag them as optional outputs.
- Independent Regulation: External audit and ethics review boards can supply transparency and accountability independent of internal company regulations.
Conclusion
The guidelines that are often contentious are more than the internal folly of just one firm; they point to a deeper systemic issue in AI regulation. The stakes rise as generative AI becomes more and more integrated into politics, healthcare, education, and social interaction. Racism, false information, and inadequate child safety measures are severe issues that require quick resolution. Corporate regulation is only one aspect of the future; other elements include multi-stakeholder participation, stronger global systems, and ethical standards. In the end, rather than just corporate interests, trust in artificial neural networks will be based on their ability to preserve the truth, protect the weak, and represent universal human values.
References
- https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/blogs/ai-chatbots-and-companions-risks-to-children-and-young-people
- https://www.lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/ai-for-children/#
- https://the420.in/meta-ai-chatbot-guidelines-child-safety-racism-misinformation/
- https://www.unicef.org/documents/guidelines-industry-online-child-protection
- https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/ai-principles.html
- https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/
Introduction
In today’s time, everything is online, and the world is interconnected. Cases of data breaches and cyberattacks have been a reality for various organisations and industries, In the recent case (of SAS), Scandinavian Airlines experienced a cyberattack that resulted in the exposure of customer details, highlighting the critical importance of preventing customer privacy. The incident is a wake-up call for Airlines and businesses to evaluate their cyber security measures and learn valuable lessons to safeguard customers’ data. In this blog, we will explore the incident and discuss the strategies for protecting customers’ privacy in this age of digitalisation.
Analysing the backdrop
The incident has been a shocker for the aviation industry, SAS Scandinavian Airlines has been a victim of a cyberattack that compromised consumer data. Let’s understand the motive of cyber crooks and the technique they used :
Motive Behind the Attack: Understanding the reasons that may have driven the criminals is critical to comprehending the context of the Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault. Financial gain, geopolitical conflicts, activism, or personal vendettas are common motivators for cybercriminals. Identifying the purpose of the assault can provide insight into the attacker’s aims and the possible impact on both the targeted organisation and its consumers. Understanding the attack vector and strategies used by cyber attackers reveals the amount of complexity and possible weaknesses in an organisation’s cybersecurity defences. Scandinavian Airlines’ cyber assault might have included phishing, spyware, ransomware, or exploiting software weaknesses. Analysing these tactics allows organisations to strengthen their security against similar assaults.
Impact on Victims: The Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) cyber attack victims, including customers and individuals related to the company, have suffered substantial consequences. Data breaches and cyber-attack have serious consequences due to the leak of personal information.
1)Financial Losses and Fraudulent Activities: One of the most immediate and upsetting consequences of a cyber assault is the possibility of financial loss. Exposed personal information, such as credit card numbers, can be used by hackers to carry out illegal activities such as unauthorised transactions and identity theft. Victims may experience financial difficulties and the need to spend time and money resolving these concerns.
2)Concerns about privacy and personal security: A breach of personal data can significantly impact the privacy and personal security of victims. The disclosed information, including names, addresses, and contact information, might be exploited for nefarious reasons, such as targeted phishing or physical harassment. Victims may have increased anxiety about their safety and privacy, which can interrupt their everyday life and create mental pain.
3) Reputational Damage and Trust Issues: The cyber attack may cause reputational harm to persons linked with Scandinavian Airlines, such as workers or partners. The breach may diminish consumers’ and stakeholders’ faith in the organisation, leading to a bad view of its capacity to protect personal information. This lack of trust might have long-term consequences for the impacted people’s professional and personal relationships.
4) Emotional Stress and Psychological Impact: The psychological impact of a cyber assault can be severe. Fear, worry, and a sense of violation induced by having personal information exposed can create emotional stress and psychological suffering. Victims may experience emotions of vulnerability, loss of control, and distrust toward digital platforms, potentially harming their overall quality of life.
5) Time and Effort Required for Remediation: Addressing the repercussions of a cyber assault demands significant time and effort from the victims. They may need to call financial institutions, reset passwords, monitor accounts for unusual activity, and use credit monitoring services. Resolving the consequences of a data breach may be a difficult and time-consuming process, adding stress and inconvenience to the victims’ lives.
6) Secondary Impacts: The impacts of an online attack could continue beyond the immediate implications. Future repercussions for victims may include trouble acquiring credit or insurance, difficulties finding future work, and continuous worry about exploiting their personal information. These secondary effects can seriously affect victims’ financial and general well-being.
Apart from this, the trust lost would take time to rebuild.
Takeaways from this attack
The cyber-attack on Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) is a sharp reminder of cybercrime’s ever-present and increasing menace. This event provides crucial insights that businesses and people may use to strengthen cybersecurity defences. In the lessons that were learned from the Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault and examine the steps that may be taken to improve cybersecurity and reduce future risks. Some of the key points that can be considered are as follows:
Proactive Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Management: The cyber assault on Scandinavian Airlines emphasises the significance of regular risk assessments and vulnerability management. Organisations must proactively identify and fix possible system and network vulnerabilities. Regular security audits, penetration testing, and vulnerability assessments can help identify flaws before bad actors exploit them.
Strong security measures and best practices: To guard against cyber attacks, it is necessary to implement effective security measures and follow cybersecurity best practices. Lessons from the Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault emphasise the importance of effective firewalls, up-to-date antivirus software, secure setups, frequent software patching, and strong password rules. Using multi-factor authentication and encryption technologies for sensitive data can also considerably improve security.
Employee Training and Awareness: Human mistake is frequently a big component in cyber assaults. Organisations should prioritise employee training and awareness programs to educate employees about phishing schemes, social engineering methods, and safe internet practices. Employees may become the first line of defence against possible attacks by cultivating a culture of cybersecurity awareness.
Data Protection and Privacy Measures: Protecting consumer data should be a key priority for businesses. Lessons from the Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault emphasise the significance of having effective data protection measures, such as encryption and access limits. Adhering to data privacy standards and maintaining safe data storage and transfer can reduce the risks connected with data breaches.
Collaboration and Information Sharing: The Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault emphasises the need for collaboration and information sharing among the cybersecurity community. Organisations should actively share threat intelligence, cooperate with industry partners, and stay current on developing cyber threats. Sharing information and experiences can help to build the collective defence against cybercrime.
Conclusion
The Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault is a reminder that cybersecurity must be a key concern for organisations and people. Organisations may improve their cybersecurity safeguards, proactively discover vulnerabilities, and respond effectively to prospective attacks by learning from this occurrence and adopting the lessons learned. Building a strong cybersecurity culture, frequently upgrading security practices, and encouraging cooperation within the cybersecurity community are all critical steps toward a more robust digital world. We may aim to keep one step ahead of thieves and preserve our important information assets by constantly monitoring and taking proactive actions.
