#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Attributed to Baba Ramdev, Claiming He Called for PM Modi’s Resignation

Introduction

YouTube is testing a new feature called ‘Notes,’ which allows users to add community-sourced context to videos. The feature allows users to clarify if a video is a parody or if it is misrepresenting information. The feature builds on existing features to provide helpful content alongside videos. Currently under testing, the feature will be available to a limited number of eligible contributors who will be invited to write notes on videos. These notes will appear publicly under a video if they are found to be broadly helpful. Viewers will be able to rate notes into three categories: ‘Helpful,’ ‘Somewhat helpful,’ or ‘Unhelpful’. Based on the ratings, YouTube will determine which notes are published. The feature will first be rolled out on mobile devices in the U.S. in English. The Google-owned platform will look at ways to improve the feature over time, including whether it makes sense to expand it to other markets. 

YouTube To Roll Out The New ‘Notes’ Feature

YouTube is testing an experimental feature that allows users to add notes to provide relevant, timely, and easy-to-understand context for videos. This initiative builds on previous products that display helpful information alongside videos, such as information panels and disclosure requirements when content is altered or synthetic. YouTube in its blog clarified that the pilot will be available on mobiles in the U.S. and in the English language, to start with. During this test phase, viewers, participants, and creators are invited to give feedback on the quality of the notes.

YouTube further stated in its blog that a limited number of eligible contributors will be invited via email or Creator Studio notifications to write notes so that they can test the feature and add value to the system before the organisation decides on next steps and whether or not to expand the feature. Eligibility criteria include having an active YouTube channel in good standing with Yotube’s Community Guidelines.

Viewers in the U.S. will start seeing notes on videos in the coming weeks and months. In this initial pilot, third-party evaluators will rate the helpfulness of notes, which will help train the platform’s systems. As the pilot moves forward, contributors themselves will rate notes as well.

Notes will appear publicly under a video if they are found to be broadly helpful. People will be asked whether they think a note is helpful, somewhat helpful, or unhelpful and the reasons for the same. For example, if a note is marked as ‘Helpful,’ the evaluator will have the opportunity to specify  if it is so because it cites high-quality sources or is written clearly and neutrally. A bridging-based algorithm will be used to consider these ratings and determine what notes are published. YouTube is excited to explore new ways to make context-setting even more relevant, dynamic, and unique to the videos we are watching, at scale, across the huge variety of content on YouTube.

CyberPeace Analysis: How Can Notes Help Counter Misinformation

The potential effectiveness of countering misinformation on YouTube using the proposed ‘Notes’ feature is significant. Enabling contributors to include notes on videos can offer relevant and accurate context to clarify any misleading or false information in the video. These notes can aid in enhancing viewers' comprehension of the content and detecting misinformation. The participation from users to rate the added notes as helpful, somewhat helpful, and unhelpful adds a heightened layer of transparency and public participation in identifying the accuracy of the content. 

As YouTube intends to gather feedback from its various stakeholders to improve the feature over time, one can look forward to improved policy and practical over time: the feedback mechanism will allow for continuous refinement of the feature, ensuring it effectively addresses misinformation. The platform employs algorithms to identify helpful notes that cater to a broad audience across different perspectives. This helps showcase accurate information and combat misinformation.

Furthermore, along with the Notes feature, YouTube should explore and implement prebunking and debunking strategies on the platform by promoting educational content and empowering users to discern between fact and any misleading information. 

Conclusion

The new feature, currently in the testing phase, aims to counter misinformation by providing context, enabling user feedback, leveraging algorithms, promoting transparency, and continuously improving information quality. Considering the diverse audience on the platform and high volumes of daily content consumption, it is important for both the platform operators and users to engage with factual, verifiable information. The fallout of misinformation on such a popular platform can be immense, and so, any mechanism or feature that can help counter the same must be developed to its full potential. Apart from this new Notes feature, YouTube has also implemented certain measures in the past to counter misinformation, such as providing authenticated sources to counter any election misinformation during the recent 2024 elections in India. These efforts are a welcome contribution to our shared responsibility as netizens to create a trustworthy, factual and truly-informational digital ecosystem.

References:

• https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/new-ways-to-offer-viewers-more-context/
• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/youtube-tests-feature-that-will-let-users-add-context-to-videos/article68302933.ece

‍

Introduction

Recently in July 2026, India's Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs quietly tried to do something almost no government has managed before: switch off an app that doesn't need the internet to work.  On July 23, 2026, I4C sent takedown notices to Google, Apple and GitHub, ordering them to pull three offline messaging apps – like BitChat, Briar and Bridgefy – from the Play Store, App Store and GitHub's code repository, respectively, giving a three-hour deadline. The notices followed a period of student-led demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, associated with a group "Cockroach Janata Party," a period that also saw a mobile internet shutdown in parts of central Delhi. When Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, who built and open-sourced BitChat, publicised the GitHub notice on X, the episode made international news. Google and Apple got near-identical orders the same night, and telecom operators were reportedly told, and then just as quickly untold, to block the apps at the network level. By July 29, all three apps were still live on both app stores, and BitChat's code was still on GitHub. This incident is worth unpacking carefully, because it sits at the intersection of three things most people care about but rarely see explained together: how this technology actually works, what the law actually allows, and why an app can be "banned" on paper while still working perfectly on your phone.

What makes these apps different

Ordinary apps like WhatsApp or Telegram are centralised: your message travels from your phone to a company's server, and then to the recipient's phone. Block or seize the server, and communication stops. BitChat, Briar and Bridgefy are built differently. They use Bluetooth mesh networking, a system where nearby phones talk directly to each other, and each device also relays messages onwards to phones further away, like a bucket brigade. No message ever touches a central server. Briar adds a further layer by routing traffic over Tor, an anonymity network, when internet access is available, and falls back to Bluetooth or Wi-Fi Direct when it isn't. Bridgefy is tuned for larger crowds, useful during concerts, natural disasters, or protests where thousands of phones are packed into a small area and cellular networks buckle under the load. This design, often called decentralised or peer-to-peer communication, is precisely why these apps are useful during disasters and precisely why they worry law enforcement: they keep working when the internet doesn't, whether that's because a cyclone knocked out cell towers or because the government itself ordered a shutdown.

The legal machinery behind a takedown notice

India's power to block online content mainly comes from Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which lets the central government order blocking on grounds like sovereignty, public order or preventing incitement to an offence  but only through a defined process set out in the IT (Blocking) Rules, 2009: a designated officer, a review committee, and recorded written reasons. The Supreme Court examined this exact provision in its landmark 2015 ruling, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. While the judgement is best remembered for striking down the vague "offensive speech" law under Section 66A, it separately upheld Section 69A specifically because it came with procedural guardrails, a reasoned order, an opportunity to be heard, and the possibility of judicial review that stopped it from becoming an unchecked censorship tool. The July 23 notices, however, reportedly leaned on a different lever: Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021. That provision governs when an intermediary loses its legal immunity ("safe harbour") for user content if it fails to act on a government or court order,  a mechanism built for content takedowns, not necessarily for pulling an entire app off a store shelf within three hours. Legal commentators have flagged this as significant, since Shreya Singhal itself read down Section 79(3)(b) to require action only pursuant to a court order or a properly authorised government direction, not an informal notice. This isn't the first time a mesh-messaging app has run into this machinery. In 2023, following an I4C request, the government blocked Briar and thirteen other apps in Jammu and Kashmir under Section 69A, citing use, the first known instance of Section 69A being used for a regional block. Briar's developers challenged this in the Delhi High Court; in 2024, the court dismissed the challenge, holding that principles of natural justice can give way in matters of national security.

Why you can't easily switch off a mesh network

Here's the technical wrinkle that made the July order largely symbolic: removing an app from the Play Store stops new downloads, but it does nothing to phones that already have it installed, and it does nothing at all to the Bluetooth radios exchanging messages between those phones. Unlike an internet shutdown, which works by controlling the pipes that all traffic must pass through, a mesh network has no chokepoint, no server to seize, no IP address to blacklist, and no single company to compel.

GitHub, for its part, said it followed its standard process of notifying the account holder and offering an appeal before taking any action, which is one reason BitChat's source code stayed publicly accessible throughout. Within a day, officials reportedly told the companies orally that enforcement wasn't necessary after all, though no public clarification or official document has been released explaining why the notices were issued or withdrawn.

Two legitimate, competing interests

None of this means the government's underlying worry is baseless. Law enforcement agencies genuinely lose visibility when communication moves off networks they can lawfully intercept, and coordination of unlawful assembly or violence is a real concern during volatile protests. 

The transparency gap

The single biggest problem with how this played out isn't the underlying concern  it's the absence of a public, reasoned order. Under the blocking rules, disclosure is restricted, and courts, including the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, have said that when access is restricted, reasons must be recorded and, where possible, made available. A three-hour notice, issued and then informally withdrawn without explanation, sits uneasily with that standard. A more durable approach,  one that CyberPeace and other digital-rights researchers have called for, would combine clearly identified statutory authority; published (even if redacted) reasoning; proportionality review; and investment in lawful digital forensics, rather than blanket app-store takedowns that decentralised technology is, by design, built to survive.

CyberPeace's policy recommendations

Alongside the legal analysis above, CyberPeace puts forward a ten-point framework for how India should approach decentralised communication technologies going forward, instead of defaulting to blanket takedowns:

• Strengthen transparency in blocking decisions
• Ensure statutory clarity
• Apply legality, necessity and proportionality
• Differentiate technology from misuse
• Invest in advanced investigative capabilities
• Establish a multi-stakeholder advisory mechanism
• Develop a framework for emerging decentralised technologies
• Promote responsible innovation
• Enhance public awareness
• Foster international cooperation

‍

Conclusion

The referred incident illustrates that regulating decentralised technologies requires more than swift takedown notices. As communication networks become increasingly resilient and distributed, effective governance must combine legal certainty, technical realism, transparency, and proportionate enforcement. India's challenge is not simply to regulate emerging technologies but to develop a kind of regulatory framework that safeguards national security and the constitutional values of privacy, free expression, and due process.

Sources

• MediaNama — Bitchat was not the only mesh-messaging app targeted by a government takedown notice
• Outlook Business — Beyond GitHub, Govt Also Directed Google To Take Down Bitchat, Briar And Bridgefy
• The Wire — Government Asks GitHub to Remove Bluetooth Messaging App Bitchat Over Concerns of 'Misuse'
• The Tech Trace (Substack) — The Indian govt's crackdown on Bluetooth-enabled messaging apps that wasn't?
• Bar and Bench — Section 69A IT Act and the expanding architecture of digital censorship in India
• Supreme Court Observer — X relies on 'Shreya Singhal' in arbitrary content-blocking case in Karnataka HC
• LiveLaw — Internet Freedom, Shreya Singhal v Union of India, IT Act, Blocking Rules 2009
• Manupatra — Full text, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
• Open Magazine — CJP Protests at Jantar Mantar: How Offline Mesh Messaging Apps Powered a Network of Resistance

Executive Summary

‍
A video is being shared on social media with the claim that a BJP MLA assaulted a man during a bridge inauguration ceremony in Assam. In the viral clip, a man is seen grabbing a young man and slapping him amid a crowd. He is then seen uprooting a banana plant and attacking the same man with it. A research done by the Research Wing of the CyberPeace found the claim accompanying the viral video to be misleading. The research revealed that the man seen assaulting the youth is not a BJP MLA, but former AIUDF MLA Samsul Huda. The video is being shared on social media with his identity falsely described as that of a BJP MLA.

‍

Claim:

‍

A Facebook user shared the viral video with the caption: “The arrogance of BJP leaders is at its peak, which means their end is now certain. He is a BJP MLA from Assam. When the inauguration ribbon turned pink instead of red, he lost his temper and started beating the person.” The post further stated: “If this mistake is considered a crime, then these MLAs should be beaten every day in the streets and neighbourhoods because they commit much bigger mistakes.”

The link to the post, its archive link, and a screenshot are provided below.

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/897841446372641 
• https://archive.ph/83JAl 

‍

‍

Factcheck

To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, the Desk first extracted keyframes from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the search, the Desk found the same video on the official YouTube channel of Northeast Live, which was uploaded on March 18, 2025. The link to the post and a screenshot are provided below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5zrgLbI6NA 

‍

‍

According to the video report, former AIUDF MLA from Bilasipara East, Samsul Huda, lost his temper over an issue while attending the foundation stone-laying ceremony of a bridge in Bilasipara, Assam. During the incident, he assaulted an employee of the construction company who was standing nearby. As the research progressed, the Desk found a report published by India Today NE on March 20, 2025, which carried the same visuals from the viral video. The link to the report and a screenshot are provided below.

https://www.indiatodayne.in/assam/story/assam-public-outrage-continue-to-mount-as-fir-filed-against-aiudf-mla-over-alleged-assault-in-bilasipara-1186872-2025-03-20 

‍

‍

According to the report, former AIUDF MLA from Bilasipara East in Assam’s Dhubri district, Samsul Huda, had attended a bridge foundation stone-laying ceremony, where he assaulted an employee of the construction company.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Desk’s research found the claim accompanying the viral video to be misleading. The person seen assaulting the youth in the video is not a BJP MLA, but former AIUDF MLA Samsul Huda. The video is being shared on social media with his identity falsely described as that of a BJP MLA.

‍