#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Real Footage of Iran Attack

Executive Summary:

In the context of the recent earthquake in Taiwan, a video has gone viral and is being spread on social media claiming that the video was taken during the recent earthquake that occurred in Taiwan. However, fact checking reveals it to be an old video. The video is from September 2022, when Taiwan had another earthquake of magnitude 7.2. It is clear that the reversed image search and comparison with old videos has established the fact that the viral video is from the 2022 earthquake and not the recent 2024-event. Several news outlets had covered the 2022 incident, mentioning additional confirmation of the video's origin. 

Claims:

There is a news circulating on social media about the earthquake in Taiwan and Japan recently. There is a post on “X” stating that, 

“BREAKING NEWS :

Horrific #earthquake of  7.4 magnitude hit #Taiwan and #Japan. There is an alert that  #Tsunami might hit them soon”. 

‍

Similar Posts:

Fact Check:

We started our investigation by watching the videos thoroughly. We divided the video into frames. Subsequently, we performed reverse search on the images and it took us to an X (formally Twitter) post where a user posted the same viral video on Sept 18, 2022. Worth to notice, the post has the caption- 

“#Tsunami warnings issued after Taiwan quake. #Taiwan #Earthquake #TaiwanEarthquake”

‍

  The same viral video was posted on several news media in September 2022. 

The viral video was also shared on September 18, 2022 on NDTV News channel as shown below.

Conclusion:

To conclude, the viral video that claims to depict the 2024 Taiwan earthquake was from September 2022.  In the course of the rigorous inspection of the old proof and the new evidence, it has become clear that the video does not refer to the recent earthquake that took place as stated. Hence, the recent viral video is misleading . It is important to validate the information before sharing it on social media to prevent the spread of misinformation. 

Claim: Video circulating on social media captures the recent 2024 earthquake in Taiwan.

Claimed on: X, Facebook, YouTube

Fact Check: Fake & Misleading, the video actually refers to an incident from 2022.

‍

AI has grown manifold in the past decade and so has its reliance. A MarketsandMarkets study estimates the AI market to reach $1,339 billion by 2030. Further, Statista reports that ChatGPT amassed more than a million users within the first five days of its release, showcasing its rapid integration into our lives. This development and integration have their risks. Consider this response from Google’s AI chatbot, Gemini to a student’s homework inquiry: “You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed…Please die.” In other instances, AI has suggested eating rocks for minerals or adding glue to pizza sauce. Such nonsensical outputs are not just absurd; they’re dangerous. They underscore the urgent need to address the risks of unrestrained AI reliance. 

AI’s Rise and Its Limitations

The swiftness of AI’s rise, fueled by OpenAI's GPT series, has revolutionised fields like natural language processing, computer vision, and robotics. Generative AI Models like GPT-3, GPT-4 and GPT-4o with their advanced language understanding, enable learning from data, recognising patterns, predicting outcomes and finally improving through trial and error. However, despite their efficiency, these AI models are not infallible. Some seemingly harmless outputs can spread toxic misinformation or cause harm in critical areas like healthcare or legal advice. These instances underscore the dangers of blindly trusting AI-generated content and highlight the importance and the need to understand its limitations.

Defining the Problem: What Constitutes “Nonsensical Answers”?

Harmless errors due to AI nonsensical responses can be in the form of a wrong answer for a trivia question, whereas, critical failures could be as damaging as wrong legal advice. 

AI algorithms sometimes produce outputs that are not based on training data, are incorrectly decoded by the transformer or do not follow any identifiable pattern. This response is known as a Nonsensical Answer and the situation is known as an “AI Hallucination”. It can be factual inaccuracies, irrelevant information or even contextually inappropriate responses. 

A significant source of hallucination in machine learning algorithms is the bias in input that it receives. If the inputs for the AI model are full of biased datasets or unrepresentative data, it may lead to the model hallucinating and producing results that reflect these biases. These models are also vulnerable to adversarial attacks, wherein bad actors manipulate the output of an AI model by tweaking the input data ina subtle manner.

The Need for Policy Intervention

Nonsensical AI responses risk eroding user trust and causing harm, highlighting the need for accountability despite AI’s opaque and probabilistic nature. Different jurisdictions address these challenges in varied ways. The EU’s AI Act enforces stringent reliability standards with a risk-based and transparent approach. The U.S. emphasises creating ethical guidelines and industry-driven standards. India’s DPDP Act indirectly tackles AI safety through data protection, focusing on the principles of accountability and consent. While the EU prioritises compliance, the U.S. and India balance innovation with safeguards. This reflects on the diverse approaches that nations have to AI regulation.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

The critical question is whether AI policies should demand perfection or accept a reasonable margin for error. Striving for flawless AI responses may be impractical, but a well-defined framework can balance innovation and accountability. Adopting these simple measures can lead to the creation of an ecosystem where AI develops responsibly while minimising the societal risks it can pose. Key measures to achieve this include:

• Ensure that users are informed about AI and its capabilities and limitations. Transparent communication is the key to this.  
• Implement regular audits and rigorous quality checks to maintain high standards. This will in turn prevent any form of lapses.
• Establishing robust liability mechanisms to address any harms caused by AI-generated material which is in the form of misinformation. This fosters trust and accountability.

CyberPeace Key Takeaways: Balancing Innovation with Responsibility

The rapid growth in AI development offers immense opportunities but this must be done responsibly. Overregulation of AI can stifle innovation, on the other hand, being lax could lead to unintended societal harm or disruptions. 

Maintaining a balanced approach to development is essential. Collaboration between stakeholders such as governments, academia, and the private sector is important. They can ensure the establishment of guidelines, promote transparency, and create liability mechanisms. Regular audits and promoting user education can build trust in AI systems. Furthermore, policymakers need to prioritise user safety and trust without hindering creativity while making regulatory policies. 

We can create a future that is AI-development-driven and benefits us all by fostering ethical AI development and enabling innovation. Striking this balance will ensure AI remains a tool for progress, underpinned by safety, reliability, and human values.

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/googles-ai-chatbot-tells-student-you-are-not-needed-please-die/articleshow/115343886.cms
• https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/ai-statistics/#2 
• https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/artificial-intelligence-trade-secrets-2023-12-11/ ‍
• https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/chatgpt-has-gone-mad-today-openai-says-it-is-investigating-reports-of-unexpected-responses-2505070-2024-02-21

Introduction

‍

Did you know that millions of workers today earn their livelihood through digital platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, Swiggy, and Zomato? The gig economy refers to a labour market in which individuals earn income through short term, temporary, task based, or freelance work arrangements rather than traditional long term employment. Most gig work is facilitated through digital platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, Swiggy, and Upwork, which connect workers directly with customers seeking specific services. While the gig economy has created unprecedented opportunities for flexible work, it has also exposed workers to challenges such as insecure employment, lack of social security, unfair pay, and algorithmic control. To address these concerns, the International Labour Organization adopted Convention No. 193, the world's first binding international treaty dedicated to platform workers. The Convention marks a significant step towards ensuring decent work in the digital age and is expected to guide nations in building stronger legal and social protection frameworks for the rapidly expanding gig economy.

‍

First Gig Economy Treaty at Glance
‍

On June 12, 2026, the course of global labor governance took a decisive turn when, at its 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva, the ILO finally ratified the Decent Work in the Platform Economy Convention (ILO Convention No. 193) with a vote of 406-8-36. This first-ever binding instrument setting labor standards for digital platform/gig workers represents the product of a lengthy multi-year debate leading to an international understanding that labor law itself had to be redefined to apply to the digital age. The Convention sought to fill a regulatory gap in which "corporation power, algorithmic governance, work informality, and workers’ rightlessness defined the space."

‍

The Genesis: How the Convention Came to Be

‍

The negotiations of ILO Convention No. 193 were long, complex, and controversial. The systematic ILO attention on the gig economy was started during the beginning of the 2010s as on-demand app-based models provided by Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, etc., began to transform the labor market fundamentally. The problem concerned is mass misclassification of workers.

Labeling platform workers as "independent contractors," as opposed to "employees," allows digital platforms to escape many standard labor law obligations such as minimum wage standards, social security benefits, health and safety standards, and the right to organize and bargain collectively.

Calls for international action escalated with the growth of the gig economy. 435 million people in the world were active in online gig work as of 2023, based on the World Bank Report. The platform work was added to the agenda of the ILO Governing Body in 2023. In 2024, a questionnaire was sent to member States and social partners and compiled into Report V(2): Realizing decent work in the platform economy (February 2025).

A decisive turning point occurred at the 113th International Labour Conference in June 2025 when, despite objections from employer representatives and governments like the United States, India, and Switzerland, delegates agreed to adopt both a binding Convention and a Recommendation on the issue. 

A Standard-Setting Committee then produced a draft instrument throughout 2025 and early 2026. The committee's text was adopted by the committee on June 11, 2026, and by the conference plenary the following day. Civil society groups, including Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, played a role in the process through their recommendations regarding algorithmic governance, data privacy, and inclusive coverage.

‍

Scope and Definitional Framework

‍

The most important and contentious aspect of the Convention is its scope. The text defines "digital labour platforms" as being covered, as well as "all digital platform workers… whether in the formal or informal economy. "It is designed this way precisely because previous attempts at regulating platforms, such as the 2024 EU Platform Work Directive, which was weakened considerably by the Council's final approval, were narrow and open to carve-outs. "Digital platform worker," according to Convention No. 193, is defined as "a person who is in employment or engaged in work for the provision of a service organised and/or mediated by a digital labour platform." It makes no distinction regarding employee status, thereby evading the definitional trap that allowed platforms to deny responsibility by defining workers as self-employed. The platforms covered in the Convention include location-based (food delivery, ride-hailing, domestic care, and construction services) and online/cloud-based platforms (data annotation, content moderation, creative freelancing, and software development).

‍

Key Substantive Provisions

‍

1. Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work :Convention 193 requires each state that ratifies it to make arrangements to "respect, promote, and realise" these fundamental principles and rights at work, which under the 1998 ILO Declaration were identified as freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of forced or compulsory labour; the abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. The question of collective bargaining rights is especially important since digital platforms have not in the past been willing to accept unions and bargaining processes, claiming that since those who work on the platform are classified as independent contractors, they do not have the right to bargain collectively.

2. Fair Pay and Parity of Treatment :The Convention enshrines equal pay and treatment for gig workers: "not less favorable conditions than those offered to workers of the same employment status classification." This has the aim of remedying the two-tier system maintained by a number of digital platforms, where workers performing the equivalent job role of employees are provided with considerably lower remuneration, lacking the benefits, stability, and protection afforded to employees under statutory labor law.

3. Transparency and Algorithmic Accountability:One of the most innovative features of Convention 193 is its attempt to tackle algorithmic management. Digital platforms must supply information about the terms of the working relationship in a manner that is "timely, verifiable, and easily accessible and comprehensible" and, "in all cases prior to any significant changes," must disclose how automated systems allocate work, set pay, and determine termination decisions. Civil society organisations, such as Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, sought to make algorithmic control, including human oversight over automated decisions to impose disciplinary sanctions, legally binding. While the final provision fell short of doing so, it represents a new standard for algorithmic transparency in international labour law.

4. Occupational Safety and Health :Each member state will be required to take steps to prevent occupational accidents, diseases, and injuries "affecting platform workers." For location-based gig workers, such as delivery and ride-hailing drivers who are repeatedly placed in hazardous and unstable work environments, this provision is vital in addressing what is frequently referred to as a 'silent crisis' within the platform economy, as workers are often ineligible for statutory workplace injury coverage and compensation schemes.

5. Social Security Access:Possibly the most significant structural reform the Convention seeks to bring about, gig workers will have a right to access social security (including medical coverage, sick pay, and retirement and maternity/parental/sick benefits), which they have been able to bypass on the grounds of independent contractor status. For decades, digital platforms have lowered labor costs by externalizing the costs of social insurance onto gig workers themselves or public welfare systems. Convention 193 attempts to render that strategy illegal under international law.

6. Protection for migrant and refugee workers :There are provisions protecting migrant and refugee platform workers and ensuring rights and protection throughout the life cycle of work, covering recruitment to employment and providing protection against discrimination. Migrant workers are over-represented among those employed in low-paid and informal gig work, where they face the highest risks of exploitation and deteriorating work conditions.

7. Dispute resolution: Convention 193 establishes for platform workers the right to effective and impartial complaint and dispute resolution procedures as well as appropriate remedies, meaning when a country ratifies and domesticates the convention, workers will be empowered to pursue direct claims against digital platforms, overcoming the traditional obstacles placed in the way of such action.

‍

Enforcement Architecture and Its Limitations

‍

Despite the convention's potential, it is subject to key difficulties in implementation. The ILO does not have the enforcement power of the World Trade Organization, and simply ratifying a Convention does not automatically give domestic law effects. Countries must integrate the Convention into their national legislation, and ratifying members are not bound to implement it until 12 months after the Convention is ratified, which has also required two ratifications for entry into force. The Convention has optional provisions excluding the scope, where the argument is for the need of flexibility in the varied labour markets. While the International Trade Union Confederation, in reaction to the exclusions, has argued that large numbers of workers could be out of its protection, the countries that resort to the exceptions have to give a justification for this practice. The enforcement of the Convention is largely a matter of political will. Countries that, like the United States, voted against the Convention, will certainly choose not to ratify and implement it in their own legal system, leaving the gig workers out of its scope.

‍

Geopolitical and Comparative Context

‍

Convention No. 193 did not arise in a vacuum. There has been a trend of national governments regulating platform work in various ways. Spain's Riders' Law (2021) provided for a legal presumption of employment for delivery riders, while the UK Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are workers in 2021, entitling them to minimum wage and holidays. The French Constitutional Council (2020) found platform worker charter clauses consistent with rights. Some Indian states have promoted registration for gig workers for social security purposes (though national legislation is still needed). Convention No. 193 standardises these varied efforts through international normative agreement and particularly helps lower-income states lacking capacity or power against global platforms.

‍

Conclusion

‍

While ILO Convention No. 193 represents a momentous milestone for platform workers, the true impact of the Convention rests on ratification, domestic legislation, and judicial enforcement, alongside consistent vigilance on the part of the trade unions and civil society. Its most significant accomplishment to date is the establishment of a new international norm: for the first time, it establishes under international law that the labor rights of platform and gig workers are state responsibilities, not discretionary private undertakings by companies, a fact made urgently necessary by the growing strength of platform power.

‍

References

‍

1. https://www.ilo.org/resource/conference-paper/ilc/113/draft-resolution-and-proposed-conclusions-standard-setting-committee-decent
2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/12/un-adopts-treaty-setting-standards-for-gig-economy-workers
3. https://www.ilo.org/node/697106
4. https://www.europeanpapers.eu/e-journal/decent-work-gig-economy-appraisal-eu-ilo-regulation-digital-labour-platforms
5. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/worlds-fi
6. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2026/06/14/2003859085

‍