#FactCheck - Viral Video of Burning Aircraft Falsely Linked to UAE, Found to Be AI-Generated

Introduction

Social media has emerged as a leading source of communication and information; its relevance cannot be ignored during natural disasters since it is relied upon by governments and disaster relief organisations as a tool for disseminating aid and relief-related resources and communications instantly. During disaster times, social media has emerged as a primary source for affected populations to access information on relief resources; community forums offering aid resources and official government channels for government aid have enabled efficient and timely administration of relief initiatives.

However, given the nature of social media, misinformation risks during natural disasters has also emerged as a primary concern that severely hampers aid administration during natural disasters. The disaster-disinformation network offers some sensationalised influential campaigns against communities at their most vulnerable. Victims who seek reliable resources during natural calamities often reach out to inhospitable campaigns and may experience delayed or lack of access to necessary healthcare, significantly impacting their recovery and survival. This delay can lead to worsening medical conditions and an increased death toll among those affected by the disaster. Victims may lack clear information on the appropriate agencies to seek assistance from, causing confusion and delays in receiving help. 

Misinformation Threat Landscape during Natural Disaster

During the 2018 floods in Kerala, it was noted that a fake video on water leakage from the Mullaperyar Dam created panic among the citizens and negatively impacted the rescue operations. Similarly, in 2017, reports emerged claiming that Hurricane Irma had caused sharks to be displaced onto a Florida highway. Similar stories, accompanied by the same image, resurfaced following Hurricanes Harvey and Florence. The disaster-affected nation may face international criticism and fail to receive necessary support due to its perceived inability to manage the crisis effectively. This lack of confidence from the global community can further exacerbate the challenges faced by the nation, leaving it more vulnerable and isolated in its time of need.

The spread of misinformation through social media severely hinders the administration of aid and relief operations during natural disasters since it hinders first responders' efforts to counteract and reduce the spread of misinformation, rumours, and false information and declines public trust in government, media, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), who are often the first point of contact for both victims and officials due to their familiarity with the region and the community. In Moldova, it was noted that foreign influence has exploited the ongoing drought to create divisions between the semi-autonomous regions of Transnistria and Gagauzia and the central government in Chisinau. News coverage critical of the government leverages economic and energy insecurities to incite civil unrest in this already unstable region. Additionally, First responders may struggle to locate victims and assist them to safety, complicating rescue operations. The inability to efficiently find and evacuate those in need can result in prolonged exposure to dangerous conditions and a higher risk of injury or death.

Further, international aid from other countries could be impeded, affecting the overall relief effort. Without timely and coordinated support from the global community, the disaster response may be insufficient, leaving many needs unmet. Further, misinformation also impedes military, reducing the effectiveness of rescue and relief operations. Military assistance often plays a crucial role in disaster response, and any delays can hinder efforts to provide immediate and large-scale aid.

Misinformation also creates problems of allocation of relief resources to unaffected areas which resultantly impacts aid processes for regions in actual need. Following the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal, a Facebook post claimed that 300 houses in Dhading needed aid. Shared over 1,000 times, it reached around 350,000 people within 48 hours. The originator aimed to seek help for Ward #4’s villagers via social media. Given the average Facebook user has 350 contacts, the message was widely viewed. However, the need had already been reported on quakemap.org, a crisis-mapping database managed by Kathmandu Living Labs, a week earlier. Helping Hands, a humanitarian group was notified on May 7, and by May 11, Ward #4 received essential food and shelter. The re-sharing and sensationalisation of outdated information could have wasted relief efforts since critical resources would have been redirected to a region that had already been secured.

Policy Recommendations

Perhaps the most important step in combating misinformation during natural disasters is the increasing public education and the rapid, widespread dissemination of early warnings. This was best witnessed in the November 1970 tropical cyclone in southeastern Bangladesh, combined with a high tide, struck southeastern Bangladesh, leaving more than 300,000 people dead and 1.3 million homeless. In May 1985, when a comparable cyclone and storm surge hit the same area, local dissemination of disaster warnings was much improved and the people were better prepared to respond to them. The loss of life, while still high (at about 10,000), the numbers were about 3% of that in 1970. On a similar note, when a devastating cyclone struck the same area of Bangladesh in May 1994, fewer than 1,000 people died. In India, the 1977 cyclone in Andra Pradesh killed 10,000 people, but a similar storm in the same area 13 years later killed only 910. The dramatic difference in mortalities was owed to a new early-warning system connected with radio stations to alert people in low-lying areas. 

Additionally, location-based filtering for monitoring social media during disasters is considered as another best practice to curb misinformation. However, agencies should be aware that this method may miss local information from devices without geolocation enabled. A 2012 Georgia Tech study found that less than 1.4 percent of Twitter content is geolocated. Additionally, a study by Humanity Road and Arizona State University on Hurricane Sandy data indicated a significant decline in geolocation data during weather events.

Alternatively, Publish frequent updates to promote transparency and control the message. In emergency management and disaster recovery, digital volunteers—trusted agents who provide online support—can assist overwhelmed on-site personnel by managing the vast volume of social media data. Trained digital volunteers help direct affected individuals to critical resources and disseminate reliable information. 

Enhancing the quality of communication requires double-verifying information to eliminate ambiguity and reduce the impact of misinformation, rumors, and false information must also be emphasised. This approach helps prevent alert fatigue and "cry wolf" scenarios by ensuring that only accurate, relevant information is disseminated. Prioritizing ground truth over assumptions and swiftly releasing verified information or acknowledging the situation can bolster an agency's credibility. This credibility allows the agency to collaborate effectively with truth amplifiers. Prebunking and Debunking methods are also effective way to counter misinformation and build cognitive defenses to recognise red flags. Additionally, evaluating the relevance of various social media information is crucial for maintaining clear and effective communication.

References

1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40399-9#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20misinformation%20can%20create%20unnecessary,impacting%20the%20rescue%20operations29. 
2. https://www.redcross.ca/blog/2023/5/why-misinformation-is-dangerous-especially-during-disasters
3. https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/blog/disinformation-during-natural-disasters-emerging-vulnerability‍
4. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-M dia-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf

Key points: Data collection, Protecting Children, and Awareness

Introduction

The evolution of technology has drastically changed over the period impacting mankind and their lifestyle. For every single smallest aspect, humans are reliable on the computers they have manufactured. The use of AI has almost hindered mankind, kids these days are more lethargic to work and write more sensibly on their own, but they are more likely interested in television, video games, mobile games, etc. School kids use AI just to complete their homework. Is it a good sign for the country’s future? The study suggests that Tools like ChatGPT is a threat to humans/a child’s potential to be creative and make original content requiring a human writer’s insight. Tools like ChatGPT can remove students’ artistic voices rather than using their unique writing style.

Does any of those browsers or search engines use your search history against you? or How do non-users tend to lose their private info on such a search engine?

Are there any safety measures that one’s the government of a particular country taking to protect their people’s rights?

Some of us might wonder how these two fancy-looking world merge and into, Arey they a boon or curse?

So here’s the top news getting flooded all over the world through the internet,

“Italian Agency impose strict measures on OpenAI’s ChatGPT”

Italy becomes the first Western European country to take serious measures about using Open AI ChatGPT. An Italian Data Protection agency named Garante has set mandates on ChatGPT. Garante has raised concerns about privacy violations and the inability to verify the age of users. Garate has also claimed that the AI ChatBot is violating the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a press release, Garante demanded OpenAI take necessary actions.

To begin with, Garante has demanded that OpenAI’s ChatGPT should increase its transparency and give a comprehensive statement about its data processing practices. OpenAI must specify between obtaining user consent for processing users’ data to train its AI model or may rely on a legitimate basis. OpenAI must maintain the privacy of users’ data.

In addition, ChatGPT should also take measures to prevent minors from accessing the technology at such an early stage of life, which could hinder their brain power. ChatGPT should add some age verification system to prevent minors from accessing explicit content. Moreover, Garante suggests that OpenAI should spread awareness among its users about their data being processed to train its AI model. Garante has set a deadline of April 30 for ChatGPT to complete the given tasks. Until then, its service should be banned in the country.

Child safety while surfing on ChatGpt

Italian agency demands age limitation to surf and an age verification method to exclude users under the age of 13, and parental authority should be required for users between the ages of 13 and 18. As this is a matter of security. Children might get exposed to explicit content invalidated to their age or explore illegitimate content. The AI chatbot doesn’t have the sense to determine which content is appropriate for the underage audience. Due to tools like chatbots, subjective things/information are already available to young students, leading to endangered irrespective of their future. As ChatGpt can hinder their potential and ability to create original and creative content for young minds. It is a threat motivation to humans’ motivation to write. Moreover, when students need time to think and analyze they get lethargic due to tools like ChatGPT, and the practice they need fades away.

Collection of User’s Data

According to some reports from the company’s privacy policy, OpenAI ChatGpt collects an assortment of additional data. The first two questions are for a free trial when a session starts. It asks for your Login, and SignUp through your Gmail account collects your IP address, browser type, and the data you put in the form of input, i.e. it collects data on the user’s interaction with the website, It also collects the user’s data like session time, cookies through third party may tend to sell it to an unspecified third party.

This snapshot shows that they have added a few things after Garante’s draft.

Conclusion

AI chatbot – Chatgpt is an advanced technology tool that makes work a little easier, but one surfing on such tools must stay aware of the information they are asking for. Such AI bots are trained to understand mankind, its job is to give a helping hand and not doltish. In case of this, some people tend to provide sensitive information unknowingly, young minds get exposed to explicit information. Such bots need to put some age limitations. Such innovations keep taking place, but it’s individuals’ responsibility what actions to be allowed to access their online connected device. Unlike the Italian Agency, which has taken some preventive measures to keep their user’s data safe, also looking at the adverse effect of such chatbots on a young mind.

Introduction

‍

The digital ecosystem has undergone a profound transformation due to the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, especially through its generative applications. While this progress has introduced innovative technologies, it has also intensified the risks of deepfakes, misinformation, and identity theft. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, introduced by the Government of India, mark an important step toward stronger digital governance and greater oversight of online activities. These latest amendments establish new regulatory standards and represent India’s most comprehensive effort so far to address synthetically generated information, including AI created audio, video, and images that closely imitate reality.

‍

Understanding the Core Shift: From Reactive to Proactive Regulation

‍

The 2026 amendment establishes its main characteristic through its shift from a reactive compliance system to a proactive due diligence system. Intermediaries must now operate as active participants who take responsibility for detecting, marking and controlling dangerous material instead of functioning as neutral channels.  The rules establish an official definition for stands for Synthetically Generated Information(SGI), which they protect through legal regulations, while they address issues such as impersonation scams, election manipulation and non-consensual deepfake content.  The current transition represents a worldwide pattern that shows that governments are starting to make online platforms responsible for the material they display.

‍

Key Provisions of the IT Amendment Rules, 2026

‍

1. Mandatory Labelling of AI-Generated Content 

‍

Platforms must ensure that all AI-generated content is clearly labelled or watermarked to distinguish it from authentic media. Users must reveal their uploaded content's synthetic origin while platforms must confirm the information.

‍

2. The 3-Hour Takedown Rule

‍

The most contentious aspect of this regulation establishes new rules that require content removal to be processed within much shorter timeframes.:

‍

• The government and courts grant three-hour time limits for removing unlawful content.
• The two-hour deadline applies to media that includes non-consensual intimate imagery.

‍

The current time frame allows content removal within three hours, which represents a major decrease from the previous content removal time, which lasted between 24 and 36 hours, because online misinformation needs urgent attention.

‍

3. Traceability and Metadata Requirements

‍

The rules require AI-generated content to include both digital fingerprints and metadata, which enables traceability and accountability through their embedded digital fingerprints. The provision serves as an essential tool for law enforcement to investigate cases while it helps identify which parties generated harmful content.

‍

4. Safe Harbour Conditionality

‍

Intermediaries who do not meet the following three conditions risk losing their safe harbour protection through Section 79 of the IT Act:

‍

• The first requirement demands that intermediaries must implement proper labelling. 
• The second requirement demands that intermediaries must complete their takedown responsibilities within specific timeframes 
• The third requirement demands that intermediaries must complete their due diligence tasks. 

‍

This development represents a major transition for digital platforms, which will face increased responsibility for their actions.

‍

5. Strengthened Grievance Redressal

‍

The amendment establishes two new requirements for platforms. The amendment requires platforms to create systems that operate at all times to monitor their compliance with regulations.

‍

Significance: Why These Rules Matter

‍

The 2026 amendments are significant for multiple reasons:

‍

• The rules require labelling and rapid content removal, which helps to stop the viral dissemination of misleading information.
• The framework provides better identity protection, defamation defence and protection against non-consensual imagery.
• The new rules make intermediaries responsible for their own compliance failures.
• The regulation of AI-generated misinformation protects democratic processes during electoral periods and public discussions.

‍

The rules demonstrate India's goal to establish international standards for AI governance and digital responsibility.

‍

Challenges and Concerns

‍

The amendments present key issues that exist despite their positive aspects:

‍

• The process of removing content at high speed creates risks for legitimate expression because safeguards need to be established through careful planning. 
• The technical and infrastructural requirements governing compliance create financial burdens for smaller platforms that operate as intermediaries. 

‍

The existing challenges demonstrate the necessity for a solution that protects both human rights and security needs.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The IT Amendment Rules, 2026, establish a critical turning point for India's progress toward digital governance. The framework aims to establish a more secure digital environment through its solution of AI-generated content and deepfake detection problems, which create transparency and accountability issues. The rules will achieve their goals through proper implementation, which requires creating quick enforcement methods that protect both legal processes and free speech rights. The ongoing development of AI technology requires regulatory systems to keep changing while including all citizens and upholding democratic principles. 

‍

References

‍

• https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/it-rules-amendment-2026
• https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/indias-new-3-hour-deepfake-removal-rule-experts-urge-strict-compliance-10528122
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/governments-new-it-rules-make-ai-content-labelling-mandatory-give-google-youtube-instagram-and-other-platforms-3-hours-for-takedowns/articleshow/128157496.cms
• https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/information-technology-amendment-rules-2026
• https://visionias.in/current-affairs/news-today/2026-02-11/science-and-technology/government-notified-the-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-amendment-rules-2026

‍