#FactCheck -Viral Humanoid Robot Video Actually Filmed at the Museum of the Future
Executive Summary
A video circulating widely on social media shows a man interacting with a humanoid robot and using abusive language, after which the robot asks him to maintain politeness. Several users shared the clip claiming that the incident took place during a recent AI summit in New Delhi. The video triggered strong reactions online, with some users demanding legal action against the individual. However, research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading.
Claim
Social media users claimed that the viral video showing a man abusing a robot was recorded during an AI summit in New Delhi, India.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search of the individual seen in the video. The search led us to an Instagram post uploaded by a Pakistani account identifying the individual as Kashif Zameer.
Further keyword searches helped us locate his Instagram profile, where the same video had been uploaded on February 17, 2026. The post included hashtags such as “Dubai,” indicating the actual location of the incident. The profile also lists Lahore, Pakistan, as the user’s location and describes him as a businessman and social media personality.
To confirm the location shown in the video, we conducted additional searches using keywords such as “Dubai” and “humanoid robot.” The research revealed that the robot featured in the clip is “Ameca,” located at the Museum of the Future in Dubai.
Conclusion
The viral claim is false. The video is not related to any AI summit held in New Delhi. The incident occurred in Dubai, and the person seen in the video is not an Indian citizen.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
Amid the ongoing tensions in West Asia between the United States–Israel alliance and Iran since February 28, 2026, a video is rapidly going viral on social media. The clip shows buildings engulfed in flames and thick plumes of smoke following an attack. Several users are sharing it with the claim that it depicts Iran’s recent strike on Tel Aviv, Israel. However, an research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is actually from August 2025, when Israel carried out airstrikes in Sanaa, the capital of Yemen. It has no connection to the current conflict.
Claim:
An Instagram user ‘iran_.news24’ posted the video on March 27, 2026, with the caption: “Iran has turned Israel’s largest city Tel Aviv into hell—fears that 200,000 people have died in the war so far.”
Fact Check
To verify the viral claim, keyframes of the video were extracted and searched using Google Lens. The same video was found posted on August 24, 2025, by a Facebook user ‘Mhmdmhywbalshrby5’. The accompanying text, when translated, stated that it showed Israeli bombardment of Sanaa, Yemen.
Similarly, another Instagram user ‘ae5ce’ had also shared the same video on August 24, 2025, identifying it as footage from Sanaa.
Media reports further support this finding. According to a report published by Egypt Today on August 24, 2025, Israel carried out multiple airstrikes in Sanaa targeting key locations, including an oil station, a power facility, and the presidential palace. Casualties were also reported. The strikes were said to be in response to attacks by Houthi forces.
Additionally, the New York Post shared another video of the same incident from a different angle on its X (formerly Twitter) handle on August 25, 2025.
Conclusion
The video being circulated with the claim of Iran attacking Tel Aviv is actually old footage from Israeli airstrikes in Yemen in August 2025. It is unrelated to the ongoing conflict.
Executive Summary
Following the reported box office success of ‘Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge’, released on March 19, 2026, a video of Ranveer Singh visiting a temple is being widely shared on social media. Users claim that the actor visited the Kashi Vishwanath Temple to offer prayers after the film’s success. Research by CyberPeace found that the viral claim is misleading. The video of Ranveer Singh visiting the Kashi Vishwanath Temple is not recent. It dates back to 2024, when he visited the temple with Kriti Sanon, and is unrelated to the release or success of ‘Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge’.
Claim
An Instagram user “newsbharatplus” shared the video on March 26, 2026, with a caption stating that after the massive success of Dhurandhar 2, Ranveer Singh visited the temple and performed rituals.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. This led us to a report published by Dainik Jagran on April 14, 2024. According to the report, Ranveer Singh had visited the Kashi Vishwanath Temple along with Kriti Sanon and noted fashion designer Manish Malhotra. During the visit, the trio was seen offering prayers, wearing traditional attire, and applying sandalwood tilak.
https://www.jagran.com/entertainment/bollywood-ranveer-singh-and-kriti-sanon-visits-kashi-vishwanath-temple-with-manish-malhotra-see-photos-here-23696781.html
We also found a video report on the official YouTube channel of Times Now Navbharat, uploaded on April 15, 2024, showing Ranveer Singh and Kriti Sanon at the temple. The report also featured visuals from a fashion event held in Varanasi.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMuW_SVbfb4
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video of Ranveer Singh visiting the Kashi Vishwanath Temple is not recent. It dates back to 2024, when he visited the temple with Kriti Sanon, and is unrelated to the release or success of ‘Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge’.
Introduction
In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.
Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide
The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality.
Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.
Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.
DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively), in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption.
Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.
Policy Recommendations
Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.
In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.
However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools, should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.
References
- https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over).
- https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/
- https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf
- /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview
- https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf
- https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html
- https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/
- https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf
- https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf
- https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/
