#FactCheck -Viral video falsely linked to Operation Sindoor and India–Pakistan conflict claims

Introduction

Meta smart glasses are now banned from courts across England and Wales. His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), the body responsible for criminal, civil, and family courts throughout the jurisdiction, has confirmed that anyone entering a court building wearing the devices will have them confiscated at the door and returned only when they leave. The decision follows a comparable restriction introduced by New York's court system weeks earlier, and it lands at a moment when Meta's artificial intelligence (AI) powered eyewear, now sold in more than seven million pairs worldwide, has already been turned away from a wide range of British venues, from pubs and restaurants to theatres and members' clubs, over the same underlying worry: that a camera built into an ordinary looking pair of glasses can record people who have no way of knowing it is happening. Courts occupy a category of their own in this debate. Photography and recording inside a courtroom have been prohibited for the better part of a century, precisely because the integrity of witness testimony, jury deliberation, and the dignity of the proceedings depend on people being able to speak and be observed only by those the law intends. Smart glasses do not just test that rule. They expose a gap in how it was ever meant to be enforced.

What actually changed, and why smartphones were never the real problem

Unauthorised filming inside a courtroom can be prosecuted as contempt of court. Smartphones, despite carrying multiple cameras, have always been let through security on a kind of implicit social contract: everyone understands that the device could record, everyone understands that using it to do so is a punishable offence, and the visible act of holding a phone up to film someone is itself a signal that can be seen and stopped. As per reports citing an HMCTS spokesperson, "There are clear restrictions on taking images or videos within courts and tribunals which is why the use of Meta glasses is prohibited."

Smart glasses dissolve that social contract. A person wearing them looks, to everyone around them, exactly like a person not recording anything at all. 

The wider pattern this fits into

England and Wales did not act in isolation. New York's court system introduced a comparable restriction weeks earlier, following an incident during a trial in which a presiding judge warned Meta's own legal team, present in court wearing the company's glasses, that recording proceedings would be treated as contempt. Reports note that the same device has already been shut out of a striking range of everyday venues across Britain, including a major pub chain, high end restaurants, private members' clubs, theatres, music venues, and comic book conventions, with critics giving the product the unflattering nickname "pervert glasses" well before any court got involved.

That pattern matters analytically because it shows this is not really a story about courts distrusting one particular gadget. It is a story about physical spaces everywhere recalibrating what "no recording" can plausibly mean once recording no longer requires a visible object pointed at someone. Meta, for its part, has said the glasses carry a pulsing light-emitting diode (LED) indicator that activates during recording and tamper detection technology intended to stop wearers covering the light, and the company has shipped more than seven million pairs, commanding, according to reports, more than 80 percent of the global AI eyewear market. None of that changes how the device is experienced by the person being recorded, who typically has no reliable way of noticing a small light on the side of someone's face across a room.

There is a genuine innovation story sitting underneath this controversy, and it deserves to be told honestly rather than dismissed. Wearable AI devices that layer translation, navigation, accessibility support, and hands free computing onto ordinary looking eyewear represent one of the more interesting consumer hardware categories to emerge in years, and the underlying engineering, fitting a camera, microphones, speakers, and AI processing into frames that look like Ray-Bans, is a legitimate technical achievement. The court ban is not a verdict on that achievement. It is a verdict on a specific gap between what the hardware makes physically possible and what existing social and legal norms were designed to detect and police. Those are two different conversations, and collapsing them into one tends to produce worse policy on both sides.

Reading the legal architecture underneath the ban

What HMCTS has effectively done is draw a bright line around function rather than form. Smartphones stay in because the courts are relying on deterrence, the near certainty of visible detection and prosecution if someone is caught filming, to manage the risk they pose. Smart glasses are excluded because that deterrence model breaks down when the recording apparatus is invisible by design. Clara Westbrook, a privacy law partner quoted in coverage of the decision, framed the underlying issue as a gap between the technology and the rules meant to govern it, rather than a simple case of institutional overreaction. That framing holds up under scrutiny. Courtroom rules were written for an era in which recording devices announced themselves. Smart glasses were engineered, whatever the stated intent, to do the opposite.

The view from India

Photography and videography are already prohibited inside Indian court premises as a general rule. Filming inside courtrooms has long been treated as a threat to witness candour, judicial dignity, and the orderly conduct of proceedings, and the principle has been reinforced recently. The Supreme Court, in a circular issued in September 2025, imposed a strict ban on photography, videography, and the creation of social media content within its High Security Zone, prohibiting mobile phones, cameras, tripods, and similar equipment except for official use. More recently, in an interim order passed in 2026, the Court went further, restricting the extraction, editing, and re-dissemination of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or digital platforms without prior written permission from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.

Read together, these rules already prohibit the underlying act that smart glasses would enable inside a courtroom, unauthorized capture and circulation of what happens during a hearing. In that sense, Meta glasses are indirectly covered the moment someone wears a pair inside an Indian court, since using them to record would fall squarely within conduct the existing circulars already forbid. What has not happened, and this distinction matters, is any explicit order naming smart glasses as a class of device to be confiscated or barred at entry, the way HMCTS has now done in England and Wales. Indian courts have regulated the act of recording. They have not yet regulated the device that makes covert recording structurally easier to commit without detection. 

It remains to be seen whether Indian courts will explicitly name and ban Meta glasses, rather than relying on existing photography rules to cover them indirectly. If that happens, the reasoning will be drawn on constitutional privacy jurisprudence or courtroom security concerns already in play.

Conclusion

What courts owe the people who appear before them is not hostility toward innovation, but a firm defence of the trust a courtroom is built on, that witnesses can speak freely, that proceedings remain what they are meant to be, and that privacy inside those walls is not negotiable. The question worth asking is not what smart glasses can see, but what courts must protect. Innovation earns its place by respecting the spaces it enters, not by outrunning their rules.

References

1. The Guardian, "Meta glasses banned from courts in England and Wales," 11 August 2026 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/11/meta-glasses-banned-from-courts-in-england-and-wales
2. Engadget, "England and Wales ban Meta Glasses from courtrooms.”  https://www.engadget.com/2234606/england-and-wales-ban-meta-glasses-from-courtrooms/
3. TechRepublic, "England and Wales Courts Ban Meta Smart Glasses Over Recording Risks." https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-meta-smart-glasses-ban-england-wales-courts/
4. BM Magazine, "Meta glasses banned from courts across England and Wales." https://bmmagazine.co.uk/legal/meta-glasses-banned-courts-england-wales/
5.  IBTimes UK" UK Court Service Bans Meta Smart Glasses After Restaurants, Theatres and Pubs Lead 'Spyware' Privacy Push." https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-courts-ban-meta-smart-glasses-privacy-concerns-18141
6. 97 Boing Boing, "English courts ban Meta glasses and other spyware." https://boingboing.net/2026/08/11/english-courts-ban-meta-glasses-and-other-spywear.html
7. MediaPost, "Meta Smart Glasses Banned In England, Wales Courtrooms." https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/417180/meta-smart-glasses-banned-in-england-wales-courtr.html
8. LiveLaw, "When Seeing Becomes Recording: Invisible Bystander And Limits Of Indian Privacy Law." https://www.livelaw.in/lawschool/articles/invisible-bystander-limits-indian-privacy-law-545517
9. PCQuest "B by Lenskart AI Glasses: India's Privacy Laws May Not Be Ready." https://www.pcquest.com/tech-trends/b-by-lenskart-ai-smart-glasses-india-privacy-dpdp-act-12141827
10. MediaNama, "Meta tightens AI glasses security as questions over bystander privacy persist." https://www.medianama.com/2026/07/223-meta-tightens-ai-glasses-security-questions-bystander-privacy-persist/
11. India Legal, "The State Of Surveillance." https://indialegallive.com/cover-story-articles/il-feature-news/surveillance-jantar-mantar-protests-delhi-police-wearable-recording-devices/
12. Feminism In India, "AI Glasses: Is India Ready To Handle The Privacy Implications?" https://feminisminindia.com/2026/07/29/is-india-ready-to-handle-ai-glasses-social-ethical-and-regulatory-governance/
13. LiveLaw, "Supreme Court Bans Photography, Videography In Court's High Security Zone." https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-bans-photography-videography-in-courts-high-security-zone-after-bars-concerns-over-reels-selfies-in-court-premises-303682
14. LiveLaw, "Supreme Court Bans Uploading and Sharing Of Audio-Video Recordings Of Court Hearings Without Prior Permission." https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/breaking-supreme-court-bans-uploading-sharing-of-audio-video-recordings-of-court-hearings-without-prior-permission-542719
15. Deccan Herald, "SC bans clicking photos, making reels in its high security zone." https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/india%2Fdelhi%2Fsc-bans-clicking-photos-making-reels-in-its-high-security-zone-3724668

‍

Introduction 

The link between social media and misinformation is undeniable. Misinformation, particularly the kind that evokes emotion, spreads like wildfire on social media and has serious consequences, like undermining democratic processes, discrediting science, and promulgating hateful discourses which may incite physical violence. If left unchecked, misinformation propagated through social media has the potential to incite social disorder, as seen in countless ethnic clashes worldwide.  This is why social media platforms have been under growing pressure to combat misinformation and have been developing models such as fact-checking services and community notes to check its spread. This article explores the pros and cons of the models and evaluates their broader implications for online information integrity.

How the Models Work 

1. Third-Party Fact-Checking Model (formerly used by Meta) Meta initiated this program in 2016 after claims of extraterritorial election tampering through dis/misinformation on its platforms. It entered partnerships with third-party organizations like AFP and specialist sites like Lead Stories and PolitiFact, which are certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) for meeting neutrality, independence, and editorial quality standards. These fact-checkers identify misleading claims that go viral on platforms and publish verified articles on their websites, providing correct information. They also submit this to Meta through an interface, which may link the fact-checked article to the social media post that contains factually incorrect claims. The post then gets flagged for false or misleading content, and a link to the article appears under the post for users to refer to. This content will be demoted in the platform algorithm, though not removed entirely unless it violates Community Standards. However, in January 2025, Meta announced it was scrapping this program and beginning to test X’s Community Notes Model in the USA, before rolling it out in the rest of the world. It alleges that the independent fact-checking model is riddled with personal biases, lacks transparency in decision-making, and has evolved into a censoring tool. 
2. Community Notes Model ( Used by X and being tested by Meta): This model relies on crowdsourced contributors who can sign up for the program, write contextual notes on posts and rate the notes made by other users on X. The platform uses a bridging algorithm to display those notes publicly, which receive cross-ideological consensus from voters across the political spectrum. It does this by boosting those notes that receive support despite the political leaning of the voters, which it measures through their engagements with previous notes. The benefit of this system is that it is less likely for biases to creep into the flagging mechanism. Further, the process is relatively more transparent than an independent fact-checking mechanism since all Community Notes contributions are publicly available for inspection, and the ranking algorithm can be accessed by anyone, allowing for external evaluation of the system by anyone. 

CyberPeace Insights

Meta’s uptake of a crowdsourced model signals social media’s shift toward decentralized content moderation, giving users more influence in what gets flagged and why. However, the model’s reliance on diverse agreements can be a time-consuming process. A study (by Wirtschafter & Majumder, 2023) shows that only about 12.5 per cent of all submitted notes are seen by the public, making most misleading content go unchecked. Further, many notes on divisive issues like politics and elections may not see the light of day since reaching a consensus on such topics is hard. This means that many misleading posts may not be publicly flagged at all, thereby hindering risk mitigation efforts. This casts aspersions on the model’s ability to check the virality of posts which can have adverse societal impacts, especially on vulnerable communities. On the other hand, the fact-checking model suffers from a lack of transparency, which has damaged user trust and led to allegations of bias. 

Since both models have their advantages and disadvantages, the future of misinformation control will require a hybrid approach. Data accuracy and polarization through social media are issues bigger than an exclusive tool or model can effectively handle. Thus, platforms can combine expert validation with crowdsourced input to allow for accuracy, transparency, and scalability. 

Conclusion 

Meta’s shift to a crowdsourced model of fact-checking is likely to have bigger implications on public discourse since social media platforms hold immense power in terms of how their policies affect politics, the economy, and societal relations at large.  This change comes against the background of sweeping cost-cutting in the tech industry, political changes in the USA and abroad, and increasing attempts to make Big Tech platforms more accountable in jurisdictions like the EU and Australia, which are known for their welfare-oriented policies. These co-occurring contestations are likely to inform the direction the development of misinformation-countering tactics will take.  Until then, the crowdsourcing model is still in development, and its efficacy is yet to be seen, especially regarding polarizing topics. 

References 

• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/new-youtube-notes-feature-to-help-users-add-context-to-videos
• https://en-gb.facebook.com/business/help/315131736305613?id=673052479947730
• http://techxplore.com/news/2025-01-meta-fact.html 
• https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/ 
• https://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/about/introduction 
• https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/01/14/do-community-notes-work/?utm_source=chatgpt.com 
• https://www.techpolicy.press/community-notes-and-its-narrow-understanding-of-disinformation/ 
• https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/metas-shift-to-community-notes-model-proves-that-we-can-fix-big-problems-without-big-government/ 
• https://tsjournal.org/index.php/jots/article/view/139/57 

‍

Executive Summary

‍

A video is being widely circulated on social media showing thousands of drones forming an image of Cristiano Ronaldo wearing his iconic Portugal jersey over what appears to be a water body. Moments later, the drones are seen creating his famous “SIUUU” celebration pose. The video is being shared with the claim that this spectacular aerial drone show was organised as a tribute to Ronaldo.

CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the viral claim to be false. The research revealed that the video is not a real drone display but was created using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and is being circulated with a misleading claim.

‍

Claim

‍

The viral video is being shared on social media with the claim that the drone show was organised in honour of Cristiano Ronaldo.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DamaeegILpU/?igsh=NmtjOTN4cWJzenJ1

https://archive.ph/Qj9n8 

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted multiple keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we did not find any credible video, news report, or reliable source confirming that such a drone show was organised for Cristiano Ronaldo.

In the next stage of the research, we analysed the video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. The tool’s results indicated that the viral video had a 71% probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

‍

‍

For further verification, we checked the video using another AI detection tool, DetectVideo AI. The analysis showed that the video had an 80% probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

At the final stage of the research, the video was also analysed using Deepfake-O-Meter. The tool indicated an almost 100% probability that the video was AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found that the viral claim is false. The video does not show a real drone show organised in honour of Cristiano Ronaldo. The footage was found to be AI-generated and is being circulated on social media with a false narrative.

‍