#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Claims Iran Unveiled B-2-Like Drone During War

Executive Summary

An image showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi standing face to face inside Parliament is going viral on social media. Several users are sharing the image claiming that the photograph was taken during the ongoing Budget Session, suggesting a direct face-off between the two leaders inside Parliament. However, research conducted by the CyberPeacehas found that the viral claim is false. The image in question is not real but has been generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI). The AI-generated image is now being shared on social media with a misleading claim.

‍

Claim

‍

A Facebook user named Madhu Davi shared the viral image on January 30, 2026, with the caption: “If this photo is from today and the Budget Session, it is commendable. RAGA Zindabad.”

(Archived version of the post available here.)

• https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=759145877237871&set=a.110639115421887 
• https://perma.cc/N2XD-TZ32?type=image 
  ‍

‍

Fact Check: 

‍

To verify the viral claim, we first conducted a keyword search on Google to check whether any credible media outlet had reported such an incident during the Budget Session. However, no news reports supporting the claim were found. We then performed a reverse image search using Google Lens, but this too did not yield any reliable media reports or evidence confirming the authenticity of the image. This raised suspicion that the image might be AI-generated. To further verify, the image was analysed using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. The tool indicated a probability of over 99 per cent that the image was generated using Artificial Intelligence.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

CyberPeace research confirms that the image being circulated with the claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi came face to face during the Budget Session is fake. The viral image has been created using AI and is being shared with a false and misleading narrative.

‍

Introduction

The unprecedented rise of social media, challenges with regional languages, and the heavy use of messaging apps like WhatsApp have all led to an increase in misinformation in India. False stories spread quickly and can cause significant harm, like political propaganda and health-related mis/misinformation. Programs that teach people how to use social media responsibly and attempt to check facts are essential, but they do not always connect with people deeply. Reading stories, attending lectures, and using tools that check facts are standard passive learning methods used in traditional media literacy programs. 

Adding game-like features to non-game settings is called "gamification," it could be a new and interesting way to answer this question. Gamification involves engaging people by making them active players instead of just passive consumers of information. Research shows that interactive learning improves interest, thinking skills, and memory. People can learn to recognise fake news safely by turning fact-checking into a game before encountering it in real life. A study by Roozenbeek and van der Linden (2019) showed that playing misinformation games can significantly enhance people's capacity to recognise and avoid false information.

Several misinformation-related games have been successfully implemented worldwide:

• The Bad News Game – This browser-based game by Cambridge University lets players step into the shoes of a fake news creator, teaching them how misinformation is crafted and spread (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019).
• Factitious – A quiz game where users swipe left or right to decide whether a news headline is real or fake (Guess et al., 2020).
• Go Viral! – A game designed to inoculate people against COVID-19 misinformation by simulating the tactics used by fake news peddlers (van der Linden et al., 2020).

For programs to effectively combat misinformation in India, they must consider factors such as the responsible use of smartphones, evolving language trends, and common misinformation patterns in the country. Here are some key aspects to keep in mind:

1. Vernacular Languages

There should be games in Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Telugu, and other major languages since that is how rumours spread in different areas and diverse cultural contexts. AI voice conversation and translation can help reduce literacy differences. Research shows that people are more likely to engage with and trust information in their native language (Pennycook & Rand, 2019).

2. Games Based on WhatsApp

Interactive tests and chatbot-powered games can educate consumers directly within the app they use most frequently since WhatsApp is a significant hub for false information. A game with a WhatsApp-like interface where players may feel like they are in real life, having to decide whether to avoid, check the facts of, or forward messages that are going viral could be helpful in India.

3. Detecting False Information

As part of a mobile-friendly game, players can pretend to be reporters or fact-checkers and have to prove stories that are going viral. They can do the same with real-life tools like reverse picture searches or reliable websites that check facts. Research shows that doing interactive tasks to find fake news makes people more aware of it over time (Lewandowsky et al., 2017).

4. Reward-Based Participation

Participation could be increased by providing rewards for finishing misleading challenges, such as badges, diplomas, or even incentives on mobile data. This might be easier to do if there are relationships with phone companies. Reward-based learning has made people more interested and motivated in digital literacy classes (Deterding et al., 2011).

5. Universities and Schools 

Educational institutions can help people spot false information by adding game-like elements to their lessons. Hamari et al. (2014) say that students are more likely to join and remember what they learn when there are competitive and interactive parts to the learning. Misinformation games can be used in media studies classes at schools and universities by using models to teach students how to check sources, spot bias, and understand the psychological tricks that misinformation campaigns use.

What Artificial Intelligence Can Do for Gamification

Artificial intelligence can tailor learning experiences to each player in false games. AI-powered misinformation detection bots could lead participants through situations tailored to their learning level, ensuring they are consistently challenged. Recent natural language processing (NLP) developments enable AI to identify nuanced misinformation patterns and adjust gameplay accordingly (Zellers et al., 2019). This could be especially helpful in India, where fake news is spread differently depending on the language and area.

Possible Opportunities

Augmented reality (AR) scavenger hunts for misinformation, interactive misinformation events, and educational misinformation tournaments are all examples of games that help fight misinformation. India can help millions, especially young people, think critically and combat the spread of false information by making media literacy fun and interesting. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in gamified treatments for misinformation could be a fascinating area of study in the future. AI-powered bots could mimic real-time cases of misinformation and give quick feedback, which would help students learn more.

Problems and Moral Consequences

While gaming is an interesting way to fight false information, it also comes with some problems that you should think about:

• Ethical Concerns: Games that try to imitate how fake news spreads must ensure players do not learn how to spread false information by accident.
• Scalability: Although worldwide misinformation initiatives exist, developing and expanding localised versions for India's varied language and cultural contexts provide significant challenges.
• Assessing Impact: There is a necessity for rigorous research approaches to evaluate the efficacy of gamified treatments in altering misinformation-related behaviours, keeping cultural and socio-economic contexts in the picture.

Conclusion 

A gamified approach can serve as an effective tool in India's fight against misinformation. By integrating game elements into digital literacy programs, it can encourage critical thinking and help people recognize misinformation more effectively. The goal is to scale these efforts, collaborate with educators, and leverage India's rapidly evolving technology to make fact-checking a regular practice rather than an occasional concern.

As technology and misinformation evolve, so must the strategies to counter them. A coordinated and multifaceted approach, one that involves active participation from netizens, strict platform guidelines, fact-checking initiatives, and support from expert organizations that proactively prebunk and debunk misinformation can be a strong way forward.

References

• Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference.
• Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2020). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances.
• Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?—A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using “accuracy prompts”. Nature Human Behaviour.
• Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). The fake news game: actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research.
• van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., Compton, J. (2020). Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology.
• Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Rashkin, H., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., Roesner, F., & Choi, Y. (2019). Defending against neural fake news. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.

‍

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/

‍