#FactCheck-Misleading Video of Building Collapse in Turkey Falsely Shared as Venezuela Earthquake Footage
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media, claiming it shows a terrifying scene from a recent earthquake in Venezuela. The 9-second clip shows a multi-storey building collapsing like a house of cards, while people nearby are seen running in panic as chaos unfolds. The video is being widely circulated by users as evidence of massive destruction caused by the alleged earthquake in Venezuela. CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be misleading. The viral video has no connection to any recent earthquake in Venezuela. In fact, the footage is from a completely different event that took place nearly three years ago in Turkey. It is being falsely shared with a wrong context on social media.
Claim:
A Facebook user shared the viral video with the caption: “The most dangerous earthquake in 126 years! At least 10,000 deaths in Venezuela earthquake, shocking claim by USGS. Reports say massive destruction has occurred, Caracas airport has also been destroyed. Statement by Yogi Adityanath after Bharat Tiwari’s encounter.” The post link, archived link, and screenshots are provided below.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2438255879794217/posts/4830038697282578/
FactCheck
To verify the claim, we performed a reverse image search of the video keyframes using Google Lens. During the search, we found the same video on WION’s Facebook page, where it was published on February 6, 2023. The original post link and screenshots are provided below. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=917786002738401
The original caption of the video clearly states that it shows a building collapse in Sanliurfa, Turkey, occurring hours after the 7.8-magnitude earthquake that struck the country. Based on clues from the Facebook post, we further searched using relevant keywords and found a report published by The Guardian on February 6, 2023, which also included the viral footage. https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/feb/06/building-collapses-earthquake-aftershock-turkey-video
The report confirms that the video is from the aftermath of the devastating 2023 Turkey earthquake in Sanliurfa, not Venezuela.
Conclusion:
Our research confirms that the viral video has no connection to any recent earthquake in Venezuela. The footage is actually from the 2023 Turkey earthquake and is being falsely shared with a misleading context on social media.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A viral image circulating on social media claims that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay touched the feet of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi during his swearing-in ceremony, while Congress and several other parties extended support to his government. The image is being widely shared with captions suggesting it captures a real political moment. However, CyberPeace Research Wing research has found the claim to be false. The image is AI-generated and does not depict any real event.
Claim
A Facebook user shared the viral image on May 10, 2026, claiming that TVK chief and actor Vijay had taken oath as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The post further claimed that during the ceremony, Vijay touched Rahul Gandhi’s feet to seek blessings, and the gesture was applauded by leaders present on stage. The post, along with archived links and screenshots, is being circulated as authentic evidence of the alleged incident.
- https://www.facebook.com/100057774695228/posts/1389222123013598/?rdid=FEzRYpVvSIieeUbj#
- https://archive.ph/kv4e1
Fact Check
A keyword-based search on Google did not return any credible news reports supporting the claim or confirming such an event. A closer visual examination of the image raised strong suspicions of AI manipulation, prompting verification through AI detection tools. When the image was analyzed using the SIGHTENGINE detection tool, the results indicated that the image is 99% likely to be AI-generated.
Further verification using another AI detection platform, HIVE MODERATION, also flagged the image as synthetic, showing an 81% probability of being AI-generated.
Conclusion
The research clearly shows that the viral image is not real. It has been generated using artificial intelligence and is being falsely shared as a real political event.
Executive Summary
A video showing a building collapse is going viral on social media. It is being shared as footage of a tragic incident that took place in Satya Niketan, Delhi. The video is accompanied by claims that it shows the building collapse in Satya Niketan. However, a research by CyberPeace’s Research Wing found that the viral video is not from the incident in Satya Niketan, Delhi. The research revealed that the video is actually from Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, where a building collapsed on September 5, 2026. Clear similarities were found between the viral video and visuals from the incident in Moradabad. This confirms that an old video is being shared on social media with a false context, linking it to the incident in Satya Niketan, Delhi.
Claim:
A user shared the viral video on YouTube with the caption: “Major accident in Delhi! A five-storey building collapsed.”
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1qeW-pFoMd4
Fact Check
While investigating the viral video, we conducted a reverse image search using its keyframes. This led us to the same video, which was uploaded on an Instagram account on September 5, 2026. The text visible in the video identified the location as Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Dc54OW2SOh3/
In the next stage of our research, we found the video on Republic Bharat’s Instagram channel, where it was also identified as being from Moradabad.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/Dc8XTlpgaRL/
Based on the information gathered above, a keyword search led us to a report published by Dainik Bhaskar on September 5, 2026. The report also contained visuals matching those seen in the viral video. According to the Dainik Bhaskar report, on September 5, 2026, a four-storey dilapidated building collapsed in the Mughalpura area of Moradabad amid heavy rain, triggering panic in the area. However, the administration had sealed the building a day earlier after assessing its condition. The incident took place at around 3 p.m. The building was owned by a man named Sarfaraz Ali.
In our research, we also tried to geolocate the building seen collapsing in the viral video. We found that the building was located near Guiyan Bagh on Jama Masjid Road in Moradabad. The location can be seen in the image below.
Conclusion
The evidence gathered during our research clearly establishes that the video being circulated as footage of the tragic building collapse in Satya Niketan, Delhi, is not from Delhi. Our findings show that the viral video actually captures the collapse of a dilapidated four-storey building in the Mughalpura area of Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, on September 5, 2026, amid heavy rainfall. The video was traced to multiple sources that identified the location as Moradabad, and further verification through media reports and geolocation confirmed that the visuals correspond to the same incident. Therefore, the viral video is being shared with a false context by incorrectly linking an incident in Moradabad to the building collapse in Satya Niketan, Delhi.
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.
- The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:
- Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide
