#FactCheck- Old Georgia, Bulgaria Videos Falsely Linked to Attacks in Israel

Introduction

As e-sports flourish in India, mobile gaming platforms and apps have contributed massively to this boom. The wave of online mobile gaming has led to a new recognition of esports. As we see the Sports Ministry being very proactive for e-sports and e-athletes, it is pertinent to ensure that we do not compromise our cyber security for the sake of these games. When we talk about online mobile gaming, the most common names that come to our minds are PUBG and BGMI. As news for all Indian gamers, BGMI is set to be relaunched in India after approval from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

Why was BGMI banned?

The Govt banned Battle Ground Mobile India on the pretext of being a Chinese application and the fact that all the data was hosted in China itself. This caused a cascade of compliance and user safety issues as the Data was stored outside India. Since 2020 The Indian Govt has been proactive in banning Chinese applications, which might have an adverse effect on national security and Indian citizens. Nearly 200 plus applications have been banned by the Govt, and most of them were banned due to their data hubs being in China. The issue of cross-border data flow has been a key issue in Geo-Politics, and whoever hosts the data virtually owns it as well and under the potential threat of this fact, all apps hosting their data in China were banned.

Why is BGMI coming back?

BGMI was banned for not hosting data in India, and since the ban, the Krafton Inc.-owned game has been engaging in Idnai to set up data banks and servers to have a separate gaming server for Indian players. These moves will lead to a safe gaming ecosystem and result in better adherence to the laws and policies of the land. The developers have not declared a relaunch date yet, but the game is expected to be available for download for iOS and Android users in the coming few days. The game will be back on app stores as a letter from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has been issued stating that the games be allowed and made available for download on the respective app stores.

Grounds for BGMI

BGMI has to ensure that they comply with all the laws, policies and guidelines in India and have to show the same to the Ministry to get an extension on approval. The game has been permitted for only 90 days (3 Months). Hon’ble MoS Meity Rajeev Chandrashekhar stated in a tweet   “This is a 3-month trial approval of #BGMI after it has complied with issues of server locations and data security etc. We will keep a close watch on other issues of User harm, Addiction etc., in the next 3 months before a final decision is taken”. This clearly shows the magnitude of the bans on Chinese apps. The ministry and the Govt will not play the soft game now, it’s all about compliance and safeguarding the user’s data.

Way Forward

This move will play a significant role in the future, not only for gaming companies but also for other online industries, to ensure compliance. This move will act as a precedent for the issue of cross-border data flow and the advantages of data localisation. It will go a long way in advocacy for the betterment of the Indian cyber ecosystem. Meity alone cannot safeguard the space completely, it is a shared responsibility of the Govt, industry and netizens.

Conclusion

The advent of online mobile gaming has taken the nation by storm, and thus, being safe and secure in this ecosystem is paramount. The provisional permission form BGMI shows the stance of the Govt and how it is following the no-tolerance policy for noncompliance with laws. The latest policies and bills, like the Digital India Act, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, etc., will go a long way in securing the interests and rights of the Indian netizen and will create a blanket of safety and prevention of issues and threats in the future.

Introduction

‍

There has been a recent surge of misinformation all over social media, claiming that every Indian ought to receive an allowance of ₹2,000 under some "Prime Minister's scheme." The message, which has been circulated far and wide on almost all platforms-WhatsApp, Facebook, Telegram, etc.-has urged users to click on an unfamiliar link to claim the allowance in their bank accounts.

It would seem like a very attractive offer, especially at a time when common citizens are coping with rising costs of living. But upon further examination, it turns out to be an outright online scam. NewsMobile fact-checked the claim and confirmed that no such scheme exists. Thus, the message circulating is a scam that aims to mislead common citizens.

Such an incident is not isolated. Over the years, fraudulent posts falsely offering benefits in the name of the government or well-known brands have been on the rise. These scams are not just about misinformation-they take advantage of trust, lure people into clicking, and sharing personal info that poses serious risks to financial and personal security.

‍

Anatomy of the Viral PM Scheme Scam

‍

The viral message received attention and was written in Hindi. It read:

“सभी नागरिकों को PM योजना के तहत दो हज़ार रुपए का भत्ता प्रदान किया गया है अपने bank खाते में प्राप्त करने के लिए click करें."

(English: “All citizens have been provided an allowance of ₹2000 under the PM scheme. Click to receive it in your bank account.”)

Beneath this was an odd link that, upon clicking through investigation, turned out to be not working and invalid. An examination of government sites, official handle accounts, and other such was done and no announcement for any such allowance was found.

This provides a neat explanation of a phishing attempt by which a scammer induces urgency and temptation in order to lure citizens into clicking a malicious link. While the link may no longer be active, it could very well have once redirected users to websites that harvest personal information such as Aadhaar numbers, bank details, or login credentials.

‍

The Broader Problem: Fake Government Scheme Scams

‍

Some scams have been exploiting the hoax gimmick of the ₹2,000 PM scheme into the wider trend. How do the con men work? They leverage the credibility of governmental initiatives to scam citizens. In the past, fake promises were made concerning free gas cylinders, cash allowances, subsidised rations, or even job opportunities. 

During the COVID times, for instance, fake vaccination registration links and so-called relief scheme offers went viral, preying on the fears and vulnerabilities of ill-informed citizens. Likewise, false schemes associated with reputed companies such as Amazon, Flipkart, TATA Group, and Hermès have also gone viral, promising free gifts or allowances. 

The one thing that makes scams associated with the government very dangerous is the exploitation of people's trust in authority. The common citizen is predisposed to believe the PM scheme or the Government Yojana because of the social credibility accorded to these announcements.

‍

How These Scams Operate

‍

These are scams where the creators intend deception and in the end, gain from defrauding a person. Fraudsters first create clickbait messages that are duly recorded to resemble official communications and often bear the government logos and bear a mix of Hindi-English text with the phrase "Pradhan Mantri Yojana" to make it sound legitimate. The messages then redirect users to bogus websites that really look very much like the government's portals, asking sick persons to enter personal information. Finally, as soon as they have obtained this data, the scammer uses it for identity theft, bank fraud, or sells it on the dark web. Social engineering does play a large role in these scams: here terms of urgency like limited time, last chance, and whatnot get created with the aim of pushing the targets to act on these without thinking. For maximum reach, victims are also asked to forward the message to their friends and family, causing the scammer to go viral across WhatsApp, Facebook, and Telegram.

‍

Risks to Citizens

‍

Risks are serious and manifold to falling prey to these scams. The immediate kind of risk is financial loss: divulging bank account details, an OTP, or credentials may constitute providing attackers the power to drain funds therefrom. Another prevalent kind of identity theft occurs through hijacked Aadhaar, PAN, or personal information that subsequently finds its way into fake loans or SIM activations. Apart from monetary losses, opening malicious links might also make devices infected with spyware or ransomware, thereby invading privacy and security. Victims tend to experience a form of psychological trauma due to feelings of betrayal or humiliation of being deceived, thus discouraging them from reporting, which in turn enables such scams to go undetected.

‍

Best Practices for Prevention

‍

It is prudent to exercise good cyber hygiene and be on the lookout for such scams. The citizens should verify each statement against government-authorised websites like https://www.mygov.in or through press statements of the ministries prior to believing it. One should not click on suspicious links offering money, gifts, or subsidies. Red flags like poor grammar, an unofficial domain name, or too-good-to-be-true offers can enable one to identify the scam in time. Two-factor authentication, antivirus software updates, and securing devices can drastically lower the threat from the technical angle. Equally important is the reporting of issues: always report any suspicious activities to cybercrime.gov.in or to the nearest cyber cell so that the authorities may trace some pattern and issue advisories accordingly. Finally, one can do some good by sharing verified fact checks within their circles to build added strength against misinformation and scams.

‍

Policy and Community Role

‍

While individual awareness is important, collective action must be taken against these fake government scheme scams. Platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and X (Twitter) must tune up fraudsters' message detection mechanisms. In the meantime, Government Bodies must alert citizens periodically on new scams through their official handles/schemes and through community outreach. 

Civil society and fact-checking agencies play an important role in dispelling frequently viral hoaxes. This work must be amplified to reach people's consciousness in regional languages for the very reason that in these terrain zones, forwarded messages are much more trusted.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral ₹2,000 PM scheme scam is a reminder that everything that is viral online cannot be trusted in toto. The scammers of the day are inventing newer scams to gain trust, spread misinformation, and extort innocent citizens.

The best defence will be awareness and alertness. Citizens must verify any claims through official channels before clicking on a link, sharing their data, or even acting upon it in any way. With proper cyber hygiene and avoiding suspicious messages, we can counterattack by reducing the percentage of impact that these scams may have and collaboratively build a secure digital environment. 

As India pushes itself further into a digital ecosystem, both empowering and being resilient to cyber fraud is not a state of individual security, but a national agenda.

‍

References

‍

• https://www.newsmobile.in/nm-fact-checker/fact-check-viral-post-claiming-pm-scheme-offering-rs-2000-allowance-is-a-scam/
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/financial-literacy/investing/beware-of-deepfake-scams-fraudsters-using-ai-videos-to-push-schemes-promising-unrealistic-returns-red-flags-to-watch-out-for/articleshow/124085155.cms
• https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/invest-rs-21-000-to-earn-rs-20-lakh-monthly-viral-videos-of-fm-are-fake-125082000517_1.html
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2124728

‍

Introduction

Artificial intelligence is often hailed as a democratiser of knowledge, opportunity and skill. It is set to improve diagnostics, personalised learning, and productivity to boost the economy, which can assist millions of people to leave poverty. However, this may be an incomplete picture. A report of the United Nations Development Programme in 2025 tells a more complex tale. The Next Great Divergence: Why AI May Widen Inequality Between Countries cautions that, unless acts are taken to intervene, AI will not alleviate inequality between countries but will instead concentrate benefits in already advantaged economies and increase risks in more vulnerable ones.

Two Gaps, One Crisis

AI is not going to create a level playing field: it has been injected into a world where there is unprecedented inequality. The report outlines two structural asymmetries that will influence the ways in which its effects manifest: a capability gap and a vulnerability gap. 

Those countries that have high connectivity, skills, compute and regulation will be in a position to reap a greater portion of the AI dividend. Others will be exposed to greater risks of job losses, information exclusion, misinformation, and the indirect consequences of increased energy and water demands. 

The centre of this transition is the Asia-Pacific region, that harbors a population of more than 55 per cent of the world. More than half of the global AI users are now located in the region, but the initial positions are quite different. Nations such as Singapore and South Korea are already spending a lot of money on AI infrastructure, with others still striving to offer basic broadband services. Two out of three individuals already use AI tools in certain high-income economies. In most countries with low incomes, the utilisation is lower. Such figures are important as they depict not only a gap in technology but also a structural difference in terms of who controls AI and who is controlled by the latter.

When Inequality Becomes a Trust Problem

Any trusted technological system is based on three tenets: transparency, fairness and accountability. AI inequality negatively impacts all three.

If governments implement imported AI systems in areas with limited technical capability, with limited transparency on their operation, their construction, and their biases. Citizens do not really trust when decision-making systems are black boxes and domestic institutions lack the know-how to question them.

Data exclusion also interferes with fairness. The AI systems trained with the datasets not sufficiently representative of the rural population, linguistic minorities, and women will generate poorer results in those groups systematically. Since South Asian women are much less likely to own a smartphone,  this impacts their representation in digital data, and consequently in any AI system trained on such data. 

Safety Risks Are Not Evenly Distributed

The lack of trust has a direct safety aspect. For example, those countries that have less robust information ecosystems have a greater exposure to AI-generated misinformation that can bias the discourse of the populace, alter elections, and cause violence. They also have the weakest capability of screening, tagging, or combating such content.

The same can be said about labour markets. The very same technologies that can speed up marginalisation and destabilise governance increase human insecurity, especially among employees in the informal economy with weak social security. The UNDP report points out that the exposure of female employment to disruption by AI is disproportionate to that of male employment, which further presents a gendered dimension in an already unequal situation.

Risks of infrastructure are skewed as well. Large AI systems may create disproportionately high energy and water demands on countries that host the data infrastructure without there being an equivalent economic payback. The environmental cost is local while profits are outsourced. Dangers of AI spread downwards, and the advantages go upwards.

The Governance Gap and Regulatory Arbitrage

Governance is perhaps the most important aspect. There are only a few states that presently have extensive AI regulation systems. This gives rise to a patchy landscape, in which safety standards differ dramatically and where companies have an incentive to install systems in jurisdictions that have weaker regulation.

The main reason is the lack of capability, as expressed by Philip Schellekens, chief economist of the UNDP in Asia and the Pacific, who says that those countries that invest in skills, computing power and well-run governance structures will gain. The rest will be left far behind. 

This departure has its ramifications outside the nations. When users in other areas are subjected to widely different rates of safety and equity by the same international platforms, the concept of uniform digital norms would no longer be sustainable. Confidence in AI systems is lost not only locally but also on a global scale.

Way Forward

The UNDP report makes it clear that there is no inevitability of divergence. To avert it, however, it is necessary to consider AI governance as a development, rather than a technology problem.

The capacity to govern should be constructed and not presumed. This implies assisting countries in establishing regulatory systems, institutional capacity, and facilitating cross-border collaboration on standards. It can also imply considering some AI features as a public good, with common models and open standards that do not allow a few firms or states to become too powerful.

The UNDP articulates the problem in a simple manner: in the end, the world's people and not machines must decide on what technologies should be given priority and how to utilise them optimally.

Conclusion

AI inequality is often framed as an economic divergence story. But its implications run deeper. It reshapes who is protected, who is visible in data, and who has the power to challenge harmful outcomes. The risk is not just that some countries fall behind economically. It is that the global digital ecosystem fragments into zones of high trust and low trust, high protection and low protection. The choices made now will determine which path prevails. AI can reinforce existing divides or help bridge them. 

But that outcome will not be decided by the technology itself. It will be decided by how societies choose to distribute access, power, and responsibility in the systems they build.

References

1. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2025-12/undp-rbap-the-next-great-divergence_1.pdf
2. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/press-releases/ai-risks-sparking-new-era-divergence-development-gaps-between-countries-widen-undp-report-finds
3. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/blog/next-great-divergence-how-ai-could-split-world-again-if-we-dont-intervene
4. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/2/ai-threatens-to-widen-inequality-among-states-un
5. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/next-great-divergence
6. https://www.eco-business.com/press-releases/ai-risks-spark-new-era-of-divergence-as-development-gaps-widen-undp-report/

‍