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

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/

‍

Introduction

A Reuters investigation has uncovered an elephant in the room regarding Meta Platforms' internal measures to address online fraud and illicit advertising. The confidential documents that Reuters reviewed disclosed that Meta was planning to generate approximately 10% of its 2024 revenue, i.e., USD 16 billion, from ads related to scams and prohibited goods. The findings point out a disturbing paradox: on the one hand, Meta is a vocal advocate for digital safety and platform integrity, while on the other hand, the internal logs of the company indicate the existence of a very large area allowing the shunning of fraudulent advertisement activities that exploit users throughout the world. 

‍

The Scale of the Problem

Internal Meta projections show that its platforms, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, are displaying a staggering 15 billion scam ads per day combined. The advertisements include deceitful e-commerce promotions, fake investment schemes, counterfeit medical products, and unlicensed gambling platforms.

Meta has developed sophisticated detection tools, but even then, the system does not catch the advertisers until they are 95% certain to be fraudsters. By having at least that threshold for removing an ad, the company is unlikely to lose much money. As a result, instead of turning the fraud adjacent advertisers down, it charges them higher ad rates, which is the strategy they call “penalty bids” internally. 

‍

Internal Acknowledgements & Business Dependence

Internal documents that date between 2021 and 2025 reveal that the financial, safety, and lobbying divisions of Meta were cognizant of the enormity of revenues generated from scams. One of the 2025 strategic papers even describes this revenue source as "violating revenue," which implies that it includes ads that are against Meta's policies regarding scams, gambling, sexual services, and misleading healthcare products.

‍

The company's top executives consider the cost-benefit scenario of stricter enforcement. According to a 2024 internal projection, Meta's half-yearly earnings from high-risk scam ads were estimated at USD 3.5 billion, whereas regulatory fines for such violations would not exceed USD 1 billion, thus making it a tolerable trade-off from a commercial viewpoint. At the same time, the company intends to scale down scam ad revenue gradually, thus from 10.1% in 2024 to 7.3% by 2025, and 6% by 2026; however, the documents also reveal a planned slowdown in enforcement to avoid "abrupt reductions" that could affect business forecasts.

‍

Algorithmic Amplification of Scams

One of the most alarming situations is the fact that Meta's own advertising algorithms amplify scam content. It has been reported that users who click on fraudulent ads are more likely to see other similar ads, as the platform's personalisation engine assumes user "interest."

This scenario creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop where the user engagement with scam content dictates the amount of such content being displayed. Thus, a digital environment is created which encourages deceptive engagement and consequently, user trust is eroded and systemic risk is amplified.

An internal presentation in May 2025 was said to put a number on how deeply the platform's ad ecosystem was intertwined with the global fraud economy, estimating that one-third of the scams that succeeded in the U.S. were due to advertising on Meta's platforms.

‍

Regulatory & Legal Implications

The disclosures arrived at the same time as the US and UK governments started to closely check the company's activities more than ever before.

• The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is said to be looking into whether Meta has had any part in the promotion of fraudulent financial ads.
• The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found that Meta’s platforms were the main sources of scams related to online payments and claimed that the amount of money lost was more than all the other social platforms combined in 2023.

Meta’s spokesperson, Andy Stone, at first denied the accusations, stating that the figures mentioned in the leak were “rough and overly-inclusive”; nevertheless, he conceded that the company’s consistent efforts toward enforcement had negatively impacted revenue and would continue to do so.

‍

Operational Challenges & Policy Gaps

The internal documents also reveal the weaknesses in Meta's day-to-day operations when it comes to the implementation of its own policies.

• Because of the large number of employees laid off in 2023, the whole department that dealt with advertiser-brand impersonation was said to have been dissolved.
• Scam ads were categorised as a "low severity" issue, which was more of a "bad user experience" than a critical security risk.
• At the end of 2023, users were submitting around 100,000 legitimate scam reports per week, of which Meta dismissed or rejected 96%.

‍

Human Impact: When Fraud Becomes Personal

The financial and ethical issues have tangible human consequences. The Reuters investigation documented multiple cases of individuals defrauded through hijacked Meta accounts.

One striking example involves a Canadian Air Force recruiter, whose hacked Facebook account was used to promote fake cryptocurrency schemes. Despite over a hundred user reports, Meta failed to act for weeks, during which several victims, including military colleagues, lost tens of thousands of dollars.

The case underscores not just platform negligence, but also the difficulty of law enforcement collaboration. Canadian authorities confirmed that funds traced to Nigerian accounts could not be recovered due to jurisdictional barriers, a recurring issue in transnational cyber fraud.

‍

Ethical and Cybersecurity Implications

The research has questioned extremely important things at least from the perspective of cyber policy:

1. Platform Accountability: Meta, by its practice, is giving more importance to the monetary aspect rather than the truth, and in this way, it is going against the principles of responsible digital governance.
2. Transparency in Ad Ecosystems: The lack of transparency in digital advertising systems makes it very easy for dishonest actors to use automated processes with very little supervision.
3. Algorithmic Responsibility: The use of algorithms that impact the visibility of misleading content and targeting can be considered the direct involvement of the algorithms in the fraud.
4. Regulatory Harmonisation: The presence of different and disconnected enforcement frameworks across jurisdictions is a drawback to the efforts in dealing with cross-border cybercrime.
5. Public Trust: Users’ trust in the digital world is mainly dependent on the safety level they see and the accountability of the companies.

‍

Conclusion

Meta’s records show a very unpleasant mix of profit, laxity, and failure in the policy area concerning scam-related ads. The platform’s readiness to accept and even profit from fraudulent players, though admitting the damage they cause, calls for an immediate global rethinking of advertising ethics, regulatory enforcement, and algorithmic transparency.

With the expansion of its AI-driven operations and advertising networks, protecting the users of Meta must evolve from being just a public relations goal to being a core business necessity, thus requiring verifiable accountability measures, independent audits, and regulatory oversight. It is an undeniable fact that there are billions of users who count on Meta’s platforms for their right to digital safety, which is why this right must be respected and enforced rather than becoming optional.

‍

References

• https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/leaked-docs-claim-meta-made-16-billion-from-scam-ads-even-after-deleting-134-million-of-them-2815183-2025-11-07

‍

Introduction

The ramifications of cybercrime can be far-reaching. Depending on the size of the attack, even entire countries can be affected if their critical infrastructure is connected to the internet. The vast majority of security breaches start within the perimeter and most internet attacks are socially engineered. Unwittingly trusting any email or web request from an unknown sender creates a potential danger for those organisations that depend on the Internet for their business functions. In this ever-evolving digital downtown yet another group has emerged from its darkest corners of targeting the UK’s very bastion of British and global heritage; a treasure trove of around 14 million volumes, ancient manuscripts, in the precious British Library. A group self-identified as Rhysida. Their bold maneuver, executed with the stealth of seasoned cyber brigands, has cast a shadow as long and dark as those found in the Gothic novels that rest on the library's shelves. The late October cyber-attack has thrust the British Library into an unnerving state of chaos, a situation more commonly aligned with works of dystopian fiction than the everyday reality of a revered institution.

The Modus Operandi

The gang uses all-new Rhysida ransomware to jeopardize Virtual Private Networks, which is typically used by library staff to gain access to their employee’s systems remotely. The Ransomware presents itself as a regular decoy file in a familiar fashion as regular phishing attacks in an email, tricking its victim and downloading itself into the host system.  Once the malware enters the system it stays dormant and lurks around the system for a period of time. The new malware has significantly reduced the dwell time from 4 days to less than 24 hours which enables it to evade periodic system checks to avoid detection.

 Implications of Cyber Attack

Implications of the cyber-attack have been sobering and multifaceted. The library's systems, which serve as the lifeline for countless scholars, students, and the reading public, were left in disarray, unsettlingly reminiscent of a grand mansion invaded by incorporeal thieves. The violation has reverberated through the digital corridors of this once-impenetrable fortress, and the virtual aftershocks are ongoing. Patrons, who traverse a diverse spectrum of society, but share a common reverence for knowledge, received unsettling news: the possibility that their private data has been compromised—a sanctity breached, revealing yet again how even the most hallowed of spaces are not impervious to modern threats.

It is with no small sense of irony that we consider the nature of the stolen goods—names, email addresses, and the like. It is not the physical tomes of inestimable value that have been ransacked, but rather the digital footprints of those who sought the wisdom within the library's walls. This virtual Pandora's Box, now unleashed onto the dark web, has been tagged with a monetary value. Rhysida has set the ominous asking price of a staggering $740,000 worth of cryptocurrency for the compromised data, flaunting their theft with a hubris that chills the spine.

Yet, in this convoluted narrative unfolds a subplot that offers some measure of consolation. Payment information purports the library has not been included in this digital heist, offering a glint of reassurance amidst the prevailing uncertainty. This digital storm has had seismic repercussions: the library's website and interconnected systems have been besieged and access to the vast resources significantly hampered. The distressing notice of a 'major technology outage' transformed the digital facade from a portal for endless learning to a bulletin of sorrow, projecting the sombre message across virtual space.

The Impact

The impact of this violation will resonate far beyond the mere disruption of services; it signals the dawn of an era where venerable institutions of culture and learning must navigate the depths of cybersecurity. As the library grapples with the breach, a new front has opened in the age-old battle for the preservation of knowledge. The continuity of such an institution in a digitised world will be tested, and the outcome will define the future of digital heritage management. As the institution rallies, led by Roly Keating, its Chief Executive, one observes not a defeatist retreat, but a stoic, strategic regrouping. Gratitude is extended to patrons and partners whose patience has become as vital a resource as the knowledge the library preserves. The reassurances given, while acknowledging the laborious task ahead, signal not just an intention to repair but to fortify, to adapt, to evolve amidst adversity.

This wretched turn of events serves as a portentous reminder that threats to our most sacred spaces have transformed. The digital revolution has indeed democratised knowledge but has also exposed it to neoteric threats. The British Library, a repository of the past, must now confront a distinctly modern adversary. It requires us to posit whether our contemporary guardians of history are equipped to combat those who wield malicious code as their weapons of choice.

Best Practices for Cyber Resilience 

It is crucial to keep abreast with recent developments in cyberspace and emerging trends. Libraries in the digital age must ensure the protection of their patron’s data by applying comprehensive security protocols to safeguard the integrity, availability and confidentiality of sensitive information of their patrons. A few measures that can be applied by libraries include. 

• Secured Wi-Fi networks: Libraries offering public Wi-Fi facilities must secure them with strong encryption protocols such as WPA 3. Libraries should establish separate networks for internal operations allowing separation of staff and public networks to protect sensitive information. 
• Staff Training Programs: To avoid human error it is imperative that comprehensive training programs are conducted on a regular basis to generate greater awareness of cyber threats among staff and educate them about best practices of cyber hygiene and data security. 
• Data Backups and Recovery Protocols: Patrons' sensitive data should be updated and backed up regularly. Proper verification of the user’s data integrity is crucial and should be stored securely in a dedicated repository to ensure full recovery of the user’s data in the event of a breach. 
• Strong Authentication: Strong authentication to enhance library defenses is crucial to combat cyber threats. Staff and Patrons should be educated on strong password usage and the implementation of Multi-Factor Authentication to add an extra layer of security. 

Conclusion

Finally, whatever the future holds, what remains unassailable is the cultural edifice that is the British Library. Its trials and tribulations, like those of the volumes it safeguards, become a part of a larger narrative of endurance and defiance. In the canon of history—filled with conflicts and resolutions—the library, like the lighter anecdotes and tragic tales it harbours, will decidedly hold its place. And perhaps, with some assurance, we might glean from the sentiment voiced by Milton—an assurance that the path from turmoil to enlightenment, though fraught with strenuous challenges, is paved with lessons learned and resilience rediscovered. Cyberspace is constantly evolving hence it is in our best interest to keep abreast of all developments in this digital sphere. Maximum threats can be avoided if we are vigilant. 

 References:

• https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67544504