#FactCheck : Iraq Religious Gathering Video Misused as Khamenei Funeral Footage

The evolution of technology has presented both profound benefits and considerable challenges. It has benefited us with global interconnectivity, optimisation of the workforce, faster and solution-oriented approach, but at the same time increases risks of cybercrimes and the misuse of technology via online theft, fraud, and abuse. As the reliance on technology increases, it makes the users vulnerable to cyberattacks. 

One way to address this nuisance is to set global standards and initiate measures for cooperation by integrating the efforts of international institutions such as UN bodies and others. The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, which combats cybercrime and promotes the responsible use of technology, is making waves in these issues. 

Understanding the Scope of the Problem 

Crowdstrike had estimated the cybersecurity market at $207.77 billion in 2024 and expected it to reach $376.55 billion by 2029 and continue growing at a CAGR of 12.63% during the forecast period. In October of 2024, Forbes predicted that the cost of cyber attacks on the global economy would be over $10.5 trillion. 

The developments in technology have provided cybercriminals with more sophisticated means to commit cybercrimes. These include cybercrimes like data breaches, which are increasingly common, such as phishing attacks, ransomware, social engineering, and IoT attacks. Their impact is evident across various domains, including economic and social spheres. The victims of cybercrimes can often suffer from stress, anxiety, fear of being victimised again, a lack of trust and social polarisation/stigmatisation.

UNICRI’s Strategic Approach 

UNICRI actively combats cybercrimes and technology misuse, focusing on cybersecurity, organized crime in cyberspace, and terrorists' internet use. Since 2020, it has monitored social media misuse, analysed tools to debunk misinformation and balanced security with human rights. 

The key focus areas of UNICRI’s strategic approach include cybersecurity in robotics, critical infrastructure, and SCADA systems, digital forensics, child online protection and addressing online profiling and discrimination. It further supports LEAs (judges, prosecutors, and investigators) by providing them with specialised training. Its strategies to counter cybercrime and tech misuse include capacity-building exercises for law enforcement, developing international legal frameworks, and fostering public-private collaborations.

Key Initiatives under UNICRI Strategic Programme Framework of 2023-2026

The key initiatives under UNICRI set out the strategic priority areas that will guide its work. It  includes:

1. Prevent and Counter Violent Extremism: By addressing the drivers of radicalisation, gender-based discrimination, and leveraging sports for prevention.
2. Combat Organised Crime: Via tackling illicit financial flows, counterfeiting, and supply chain crimes while promoting asset recovery.
3. Promotion of Emerging Technology Governance: Encouraging responsible AI use, mitigating cybercrime risks, and fostering digital inclusivity.
4. Rule of Law and Justice Access: Enhancing justice systems for women and vulnerable populations while advancing criminal law education.
5. CBRN Risk Mitigation: Leveraging expert networks and whole-of-society strategies to address chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear risks.

The Challenges and Opportunities: CyberPeace Takeaways

The challenges that affect the regulation of cybercrimes are most often caused due to jurisdictional barriers, the lack of resources, and the rapid pace of technological change. This is due to the cross-border nature of cybercrimes and as many nations lack the expertise or infrastructure to address sophisticated cyber threats. The regulatory or legislative frameworks often get outpaced by technology developments, including quantum computing, deepfakes, or blockchain misuse. Due to this, these crimes are often unpunished.  

The opportunities that have been developing for innovation in cybercrime prevention, include AI and machine learning tools to detect cybercrimes, enhanced international cooperation that can strengthen the collective defence mechanisms, like multi-stakeholder approaches.  Capacity Building initiatives for continuous training and education help LEAs and judicial systems adapt to emerging threats, is a continuous effort that requires participation from all sectors, be it public or private. 

Conclusion 

Due to cybercrimes and the threats they induce on individuals, communities, and global security, the proactive approach by UNICRI of combining international cooperation, capacity-building and innovative strategies is pivotal in combating these challenges. By addressing the challenges of organised crime in cyberspace, child online protection, and emerging technology governance, UNICRI exemplifies the power of strategic engagement. While jurisdictional barriers and resource limitations persist, the opportunities in AI, global collaboration, and education offer a path forward. With the evolution of technology, our defences must also be dynamic and ever evolving, and UNICRI’s efforts are essential to building a safer, more inclusive digital future for all.

References

• https://unicri.it/special_topics/securing_cyberspace
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/10/11/the-10-biggest-cyber-security-trends-in-2024-everyone-must-be-ready-for-now/

‍

Introduction
‍

Meta Platforms is experiencing a long-term surge of lawsuits that not only question particular practices, but also the very design and governance of its platforms, across the United States and beyond. This range of privacy breaches to youth mental health damages and antitrust issues are all indicative of a new era of judicial, regulatory, and civil society scrutiny of the duties of big tech firms. The main question is no longer whether harmful content is placed on platforms, but to what extent they are actively creating harm-producing environments.
‍

From Content to Conduct: A Turning Point in Legal Strategy
‍

Over the years, Meta and other sites have depended on legal safeguards like the US Communications Decency Act, Section 230, which protects companies against liability due to user-created content. New ways of testing that protection are now being tried.

Recent incidents have shifted off the blame of particular content and has placed the emphasis on the design of the platform. Courts are becoming more receptive to consider whether the characteristics of infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification, and engagement-based ranking systems are contributing to quantifiable harm.

In March 2026, a California jury declared that Meta and Google were negligent in creating platforms that led to youth addiction and mental health problems. The jury decided that Meta and Google were to pay off a joint sum of 6 million dollars in damages, with 70 percent of the sum being charged on Meta. It is a bellwether case, which means that it is related to about 2,000 other pending cases by parents and school districts. This change is important as it avoids legal barriers. When the liability is linked to the design decisions instead of user-created content, accountability begins to shift. 
‍

The Youth Harm Cases: A Big Tobacco Moment
‍

Social media are becoming the subject of increased scrutiny by courts and regulators as products that have quantifiable psychological impacts. The most impactful group of lawsuits against Meta is, perhaps, the one concerning youth mental health.

A day prior to the California verdict, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages due to failure to safeguard young users against child predators on Instagram and Facebook, and found that the company had lied to consumers about the safety of its products and violated state consumer protection laws.

Similar arguments have been presented in other lawsuits filed by attorneys general in over 30 states, and the cases reflect previous regulatory turning points in other industries such as tobacco. The question that courts are not merely asking is whether there is harm or not. They are questioning whether businesses were aware of creating systems that capitalize on behavioral weaknesses. It has been reported in internal documents and accounts of former employees that Meta made a profit by intentionally turning its platforms into addictions to children, with algorithmic functions tailored to drive users into engagement loops, maximising time on platform to the detriment of wellbeing.

Meta has refuted these characterisations, claiming that teen mental health is multifaceted and cannot be blamed on an individual app. The companies have indicated that they will appeal the verdicts.
‍

Privacy and Data Misuse: An Ongoing Fault Line
‍

Platform design is not the only issue that Meta faces in legal matters. Cases centered on privacy have been a recurrent problem in the last ten years, and previous cases have claimed that Facebook monitored users even after they have logged out, scanned personal messages, and utilized personal data in a manner that was beyond user expectations. In more recent times, in April 2026, a class action suit was filed claiming that WhatsApp messages were accessed by Meta employees and third-party contractors, despite the long-standing end-to-end encryption guarantees of the platform.

These instances indicate a structural problem that is consistent. Consent mechanisms and privacy policies tend to be out of date with the reality of data use, and the gap between legal compliance and what users actually know or expect.
‍

Antitrust: A Win, But Not a Clean One
‍

One of the legal fronts was Meta all the way. In November 2025, a judge in the US District Court, James Boasberg, declared that Meta was not a social networking monopoly, finding that the FTC did not demonstrate that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp by the company were against the antitrust law. The decision has since been appealed by the FTC, which continues to argue that "Meta broke our antitrust laws by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, and that American consumers have been harmed by it.

The case also demonstrates a significant drawback of the antitrust law as a form of regulation of tech companies. By the time the trial occurred five years after the lawsuit was initiated, the social media market had evolved such that Tik Tok was a major competitor, undermining the market definition claims of the FTC. The structural issue of whether a few platforms are too powerful in the communication of the masses is not answered, although the legal claim in this instance might have been unsuccessful.
‍

Policy Takeaways: What This Means Going Forward
‍

The accumulating number of lawsuits against Meta provides a number of valuable lessons to policymakers.

1. Platform design has become a regulatory topic. Laws should go beyond content regulation and deal with the construction of systems. Engagement maximising features can also increase harm, and this trade-off must be governed explicitly.
2. Transparency should be mandatory and not discretionary. Privacy policies and disclosures on platforms are usually too complicated or ambiguous. Regulators might be required to make more transparent and standardised disclosures regarding the use of data and the operation of recommendation systems.
3. Section 230 safeguards are under reinterpretation. Courts are becoming open to restrict immunity in cases where the harm is associated with the conduct of the platform and not the content of the user. This would redefine the law of all digital platforms, and not only Meta.
4. Cross-border coordination is needed. Meta is an international company, yet the regulatory reaction is still divided. This will require more coordination among jurisdictions to guarantee uniform enforcement and to eliminate regulatory arbitrage.
   ‍

Conclusion
‍

The lawsuits of Meta are not single cases. They are a more general reconsideration of the regulation of digital platforms and the accountability of those responsible when design decisions have harm at scale. In the wider context of the technology ecosystem, the implications are structural. Courts are starting to question not only what is hosted on them, but how they work and why they are constructed in the manner they are.

The age of minimal responsibility is being supplanted by a more challenging requirement: that platforms should foresee, quantify, and alleviate the harms they produce. The result of these cases will not only decide the future of Meta in terms of legal matters. They will influence the regulations of the digital economy in the years to come.

‍

References
‍

1. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict 
2. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/jury-finds-meta-and-youtube-liable-in-landmark-youth-addiction-case
3. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-ftc-whatsapp-instagram/
4. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/20/ftc-appeals-metaruling-antitrust-instagram-whatsapp.html‍
5. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjw0zgz9zyo

A video is being widely shared on social media showing devotees seated in a boat appearing stunned as a massive, multi-hooded snake—resembling the mythical Sheshnag—suddenly emerges from the middle of a water body.

The video captures visible panic and astonishment among the devotees. Social media users are sharing the clip claiming that it is from Vrindavan, with some portraying the sight as a divine or supernatural event. However, research conducted by the Cyber Peace Foundation found the viral claim to be false. Our research  revealed that the video is not authentic and has been generated using artificial intelligence (AI).

‍

Claim

‍

On January 17, 2026, a user shared the viral video on Instagram with the caption suggesting that God had appeared again in the age of Kalyug. The post claims that a terrifying video from Vrindavan has surfaced in which devotees sitting in a boat were shocked to see a massive multi-hooded snake emerge from the water. The caption further states that devotees are hailing the creature as an incarnation of Sheshnag or Vasuki Nag, raising religious slogans and questioning whether the sight represents a divine sign. (The link to the post, its archive link, and screenshots are available.)

• https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTngN9FkoX0/?igsh=MTZvdTN1enI2NnFydA%3D%3D 
• https://archive.ph/UuAqB 

‍

Fact Check:

Upon closely examining the viral video, we suspected that it might be AI-generated. To verify this, the video was scanned using the AI detection tool SIGHTENGINE, which indicated that the visual is 99 per cent AI-generated.

‍

‍

In the next step of the research , the video was analysed using another AI detection tool, HIVE Moderation. According to the results obtained, the video was found to be 62 per cent AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research  clearly establishes that the viral video claiming to show a multi-hooded snake in Vrindavan is not real. The clip has been created using artificial intelligence and is being falsely shared on social media with religious and sensational claims.

‍