#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Thermal Footage of Hundreds of Crocodiles in the Amazon River

Executive Summary:

A viral social media claim suggested that India Post would discontinue all red post boxes across the country from 1 September 2025, attributing the move to the government’s Digital India initiative. However, fact-checking revealed this claim to be false. India Post’s official X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram handles clarified on 7 August 2025 that red letterboxes remain operational, calling them timeless symbols of connection and memories. No official notice or notification regarding their discontinuation exists on the Department of Posts’ website. This indicates the viral posts were misleading and aimed at creating confusion among the public.

‍

Claim:

A claim is circulating on social media stating that India Post will discontinue all red post boxes across the country effective 1 September 2025. According to the viral posts,[archived link] the move is being linked to the government’s push towards Digital India, suggesting that traditional post boxes have lost their relevance in the digital era.

‍

‍Fact Check:  

After conducting a reverse image analysis, we found that the official X handle of India Post, in a post dated 7 August 2025, clarified that the viral claim was incorrect and misleading. The post was shared with the caption:

‍

I’m still right here and always will be!"

India Post is evolving with the times, but some things will remain the same- always. We have carried love, news, and stories for generations... And guess what? Our red letterboxes are here to stay.

They are symbols of connection, memories, and moments that mattered. Then. Now. Always. 

Keep sending handwritten letters- we are here for you.

‍

This directly refutes the viral claim about the discontinuation of the red post box from 1 September 2025. A similar clarification was also posted on the official Instagram handle @indiapost_dop on the same date.

‍

‍

Furthermore, after thoroughly reviewing the official website of the Department of Posts, Government of India, we found absolutely no trace, notice, or even the slightest mention of any plan to discontinue the iconic red post boxes. This complete absence of official communication strongly reinforces the fact that the viral claim is nothing more than a baseless and misleading rumour.

‍

‍

Conclusion: 

The claim about the discontinuation of red post boxes from 1 September 2025 is false and misleading. India Post has officially confirmed that the iconic red letterboxes will continue to function as before and remain an integral part of India’s postal services.

• Claim: A viral claim suggests that India Post will remove all red letter boxes across the country beginning 1 September 2025.‍
• Claimed On: Social Media‍
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

Executive Summary:

This report discloses a new cyber threat contributing to the list of threats targeting internet users in the name of "Aarong Ramadan Gifts". The fraudsters are imitating the popular Bangladeshi brand Aarong, which is known for its Bengali ethnic wear and handicrafts, and allure the victims with the offer of exclusive gifts for Ramadan. The moment when users click on the link, they are taken through a fictitious path of quizzes, gift boxes, and social proof, that simply could damage their personal information and system devices. Through knowing how this is done we can educate users to take caution and stop themselves from falling into cyber threats.

False Claim:

The false message accompanied by a link on social media, claims that Aarong, one of the most respected brands in Bangladesh for their exquisite ethnic wear and handicrafts, is providing Ramadan gifts exclusively through online promotion. And while that may be the facade of the scam, its real aim is to lead users to click on harmful links that may end up in their personal data and devices being compromised.

‍

The Deceptive Journey:

• The Landing page starts with a salutation and a catchy photo of Aarong store, and later moves ahead encouraging the visitors to take a part of a  short quiz to claim the gift. This is designed for the purpose of creating a false image of authenticity and trustworthiness.
• A certain area at the end of the page looks like a social media comment section, and users are posting the positive impacts the claim has on them. This is one of the techniques to build the image of a solid base of support and many partakers.
• The quiz starts with a few easy questions on how much the user knows about Aarong and their demographics. This data is vital in the development of more complex threats and can be used to address specific targets in the future.
• After the user hits the OK button, the screen displays a matrix of the Gift boxes, and the user then needs to make at least 3 attempts to  attain the reward. This is a commonly used approach which allows the scammer to keep users engaged longer and increases the chances of making them comply with the fraudulent scheme.
• The user is instructed to share the campaign on WhatsApp from this point of the campaign, and the user must keep clicking the WhatsApp button until the progress bar is complete. This is a way to both expand and perpetuate the scam, affecting many more users.
• After completing the steps, the user is shown instructions on how to claim the prize.

The Analysis:

• The home page and quiz are structured to maintain a false impression of genuineness and proficiency, thus allowing the victims to partake in the fraudulent design. The compulsion to forward the message in WhatsApp is the way they inspire more and more users and eventually get into the scam.
• The final purpose of the scam could be to obtain personal data from the user and eventually enter their devices, which could lead to a higher risk of cyber threats, such as identity theft, financial theft, or malware installation.
• We have also cross-checked and as of now there is no well established and credible source or any official notification that has confirmed such an offer advertised by Aarong.
• The campaign is hosted on a third party domain instead of the official Website, this raised suspicion. Also the domain has been registered recently.
• The intercepted request revealed a connection to a China-linked analytical service, Baidu in the backend.

‍

• Domain Name: apronicon.top
• Registry Domain ID: D20231130G10001G_13716168-top
• Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.west263[.]com
• Registrar URL: www.west263[.]com
• Updated Date: 2024-02-28T07:21:18Z
• Creation Date: 2023-11-30T03:27:17Z  (Recently created)
• Registry Expiry Date: 2024-11-30T03:27:17Z
• Registrar: Chengdu west dimension digital
• Registrant State/Province: Hei Long Jiang
• Registrant Country: CN (China)
• Name Server: amos.ns.cloudflare[.]com
• Name Server: zara.ns.cloudflare[.]com

Note: Cybercriminal used Cloudflare technology to mask the actual IP address of the fraudulent website.

CyberPeace Advisory:

• Do not open those messages received from social platforms in which you think that such messages are suspicious or unsolicited. In the beginning, your own discretion can become your best weapon.
• Falling prey to such scams could compromise your entire system, potentially granting unauthorized access to your microphone, camera, text messages, contacts, pictures, videos, banking applications, and more. Keep your cyber world safe against any attacks.
• Never, in any case, reveal such sensitive data as your login credentials and banking details to entities you haven't validated as reliable ones.
• Before sharing any content or clicking on links within messages, always verify the legitimacy of the source. Protect not only yourself but also those in your digital circle.
• For the sake of the truthfulness of offers and messages, find the official sources and companies directly. Verify the authenticity of alluring offers before taking any action.

Conclusion:

Aarong Ramadan Gift scam is a fraudulent act that takes advantage of the victims' loyalty to a reputable brand. The realization of the mechanism used to make the campaign look real, can actually help us become more conscious and take measures to our community not to be inattentive against cyberthreats. Be aware, check the credibility, and spread awareness to others wherever you can, to contribute in building a security conscious digital space.

‍

Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.

The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.

‍

The Emergence of the Digital Menace

‍

Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.

‍

The Gap in Law and Institution

‍

None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.

‍

II. Explanation of the Amendments

The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation. 

‍

A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.

‍

Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:

The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.

Expansion of Legal Scope:

Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.

‍

B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements

‍

Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:

The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.

‍

C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content

‍

The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down. 

1. The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:

1. Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
2. It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
3. It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary. 

2. The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.

‍

D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities

‍

The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps. 

Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users. 

Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.

Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.

The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance. 

An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.

‍

III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework

‍

1. Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.

The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability. 

2. Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge

Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.

3. Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance

The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.

4. Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation

The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.

‍

IV. Conclusion

‍

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.

‍

V. References 

‍

1. Amendments To The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 It Rules 2021 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide 

‍