#FactCheck- Viral Video Falsely Claims Iranian Strike Destroyed Israeli Army Headquarters

When your digital identity becomes raw material for someone else’s imagination, who really owns your face?

On July 7, 2026, Meta launched Muse Image, the first standalone image-generation model developed by Meta Superintelligence Labs under Alexandr Wang. Positioned as a competitor to OpenAI’s GPT Images 2.0 and Google’s Nano Banana 2, the launch highlights Meta’s growing ambitions in the generative AI race. Yet beneath the technical advancements lies a far more consequential question than what AI can create, but about who gets to decide what it creates with?

That ambition of generative AI comes with a cost, and one of Muse Image's most controversial design choices is its integration with Instagram, which allows public profiles to become creative references for AI-generated images. Users can tag public Instagram accounts in prompts and generate AI images inspired by that person’s publicly available content. Meta presents this as a new form of personalization and creativity. However, critics argue that the feature transforms years of personal photographs into a massive library of AI-ready human identities, where non-action automatically becomes permission. The concern is not just that AI can generate realistic images. The concern is that consent itself is being manipulated in a way.

‍

 The opt-out system most users never asked for

Muse Image operates through Meta AI’s integration with Instagram. A user can reference a public Instagram profile in a prompt, allowing the system to generate images influenced by that person’s existing content and likeness. Under the default arrangement, the person whose profile is being referenced may not necessarily approve the generation beforehand.

Meta does provide users with controls to restrict this functionality. The setting exists under Instagram’s “Sharing and reuse” options, where users can disable permissions related to the use of their posts and reels with Meta’s AI features. But the larger issue is the direction in which responsibility flows. Instead of requiring active permission before someone’s likeness becomes available for AI-generated content, the burden is placed on individuals to discover the feature, understand the implications, locate the setting, and disable it. In a digital environment where users already navigate endless privacy menus, cookie banners, and terms of service agreements, expecting meaningful awareness from billions of people becomes unrealistic. Consent that depends on finding the exit door is very different from consent that begins with a choice.

‍

A guide for opting-out

One way of opting out is to have a private account. As verified, Meta does not encroach on private accounts as of now for image-generation.

But if you have a public account, here are the steps that can be followed to secure yourself from Meta’s Muse automatic consent:

On your profile, tap the menu bar which is on the top right (≡), you will enter into ‘setting and activity’, after that you will see an option of ‘sharing and refuse’ and then disable the options under it, namely- Allow people to reuse your content on Instagram and with AI features at Meta. Notably, the changes made will be only for your future content not the already existing content on your public profile.

‍

 Why “public” does not mean “available for anything”

The debate around Muse Image highlights a deeper misunderstanding at the center of modern digital platforms: the difference between visibility and reuse. When someone makes an Instagram account public, they are generally making a decision about the audience. They are allowing others to view their photos, discover their profile, or engage with their content. That decision was never traditionally understood as permission for their face, appearance, personal moments, or identity markers to become reusable components in AI-generated media. A photograph posted online has context. It represents a specific moment, purpose, relationship, or expression. Generative AI changes that equation because it separates identity from context. A person’s likeness can be extracted from its original context and placed into entirely new situations created by someone else. Muse Image does not just expand who can see your content. It expands what can be done with it. That distinction is what scales the problem for every public user on the app. The privacy implications become significantly larger because of Instagram’s global reach. With billions of users worldwide, even a small percentage of affected public accounts represents an enormous number of people. Many public profiles do not belong to celebrities, influencers, or creators who intentionally operate as public brands. They belong to students, professionals, small businesses, artists, photographers, and everyday users who simply chose visibility within a social network.

For years, platforms encouraged people to share more, build audiences, and maintain a public digital presence. Now, the meaning of that public presence is changing after the fact. The question becomes: should a decision made years ago to share photos socially automatically extend into permission for generative AI systems built years later?

There is also a catch while opting out. Changing these settings only protects your content from being used in future AI generations,  it does not undo anything that has already happened. Any AI images previously created using your public profile will remain unaffected. Essentially, the opt-out works as a shield for what comes next, not a reset button for what has already been created.

‍

 A familiar pattern in the AI era

Muse Image reflects a broader pattern emerging across the technology industry. New AI capabilities are introduced at massive scale, participation becomes the default, and individual control arrives afterward through settings that many users may never find. The same debates that once surrounded targeted advertising, data collection, and algorithmic profiling are now moving into a far more personal territory, the human identity itself. Faces are not ordinary data points. Unlike a username, password, or preference setting, a person cannot simply replace their appearance once it has been widely replicated.

Technical solutions such as AI watermarking and content labels may help identify generated material, but they address authenticity after creation. They do not answer the question of whether the generation should have happened in the first place.

‍

 Innovation cannot replace consent

The technological progress behind Muse Image is significant. Better image generation, improved text rendering, and more personalized creative tools represent genuine advances in artificial intelligence. But capability alone cannot determine acceptability. The future of AI will not only depend on how realistic images become, how powerful models become, or how quickly companies can deploy new features. It will also depend on whether people feel they have meaningful control over their own digital identities. Muse Image is therefore more than another AI product launch. It represents a defining question for the next phase of the internet: Will our online presence remain something we control, or will it become something others can generate?

‍

‍Brief Overview of the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies.  The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.

The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI  use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.

In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions

• The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
• Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
• The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.

Application & Timeline of Act

The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:

• August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
• February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
• August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models. 
• August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
•  August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.

The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).

In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers. 

CyberPeace Outlook 

The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.

The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount. 

At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.

References: 

1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
2. https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
3. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
4. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
6. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

‍

Executive Summary 

A video is being shared on social media with the claim that it shows a recent Houthi attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. The video shows people running inside a building amid chaos, followed by a loud explosion that appears to shatter glass. The post claims that the visuals show the Riyadh airport during a Houthi missile attack. However, CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found that the video is actually from Russia.

Claim:

A social media post is being shared with the claim that the video shows a Houthi attack on Riyadh Airport in Saudi Arabia.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1491107586179716 

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/O9X4A

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the truth behind the video being shared with the claim that it shows a Houthi attack on an airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, we conducted a reverse image search of its keyframes. During the search, we found a video uploaded on June 19, 2026, by the Kazakh YouTube account @AzattyqAsia, which contains the same visuals seen in the viral video. According to the report, the video shows Russia’s Sadovod Market, where a massive fire broke out following a drone attack.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D2-m4l5Obc8

‍

‍

Additionally, we found another video shot from a different angle on the Facebook account Yenisafak.com/ru, uploaded on June 18, 2026. The video contains the same visuals seen in the viral clip. The post states that the video was filmed at Moscow’s Sadovod Market, where a massive fire broke out at a complex following a drone attack.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/980820447900927

‍

Conclusion

‍

The evidence gathered during our research makes it clear that the viral video does not show a Houthi attack on an airport in Saudi Arabia, but is actually from Moscow, the capital of Russia.

‍