#Factcheck-Viral Image of Men Riding an Elephant Next to a Tiger in Bihar is Misleading

Introduction 

‍

Regulatory agencies throughout Europe have stepped up their monitoring of digital communication platforms because of the increased use of Artificial Intelligence in the digital domain. Messaging services have evolved into being more than just messaging systems, they now serve as a gateway for Artificial Intelligence services, Business Tools and Digital Marketplaces. In light of this evolution, the Competition Authority in Italy has taken action against Meta Platforms and ordered Meta to cease activities on WhatsApp that are deemed to restrict the ability of other companies to sell AI-based chatbots. This action highlights the concerns surrounding Gatekeeping Power, Market Foreclosure and Innovation Suppression. This proceeding will also raise questions regarding the application of Competition Law to the actions of Dominant Digital Platforms, where they leverage their own ecosystems to promote their own AI products to the detriment of competitors.

‍

Background of the Case

‍

In December 2025, Italy’s competition authority, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), ordered Meta Platforms to suspend certain contractual terms governing WhatsApp. These terms allegedly prevented or restricted the operation of third-party AI chatbots on WhatsApp’s platform.

The decision was issued as an interim measure during an ongoing antitrust investigation. According to the AGCM, the disputed terms risked excluding competing AI chatbot providers from accessing a critical digital channel, thereby distorting competition and harming consumer choice.

‍

Why WhatsApp Matters as a Digital Gateway

‍

WhatsApp is situated uniquely within the European digital landscape. It has hundreds of millions of users throughout the entire European Union; therefore, it is an integral part of the communication infrastructure that supports communications between individual consumers and companies as well as between companies and their service providers. AI chatbot developers depend heavily upon WhatsApp as it provides the ability to connect directly with consumers in real-time, which is critical to their success as business offers.

According to the Italian regulator's opinion, a corporation that controls the ability to communicate via such a popular platform has a tremendous influence over innovation within that market as it essentially operates as a gatekeeper between the company creating an innovative service and the consumer using that service. If Meta is permitted to stop competing AI chatbot developers while providing more productive and useful offers than those offered by competing developers, it is likely that competing developers will be unable to market and distribute their innovative products at sufficient scale to remain competitive.

‍

Alleged Abuse of Dominant Position

‍

Under EU and national competition law, companies holding a dominant market position bear a special responsibility not to distort competition. The AGCM’s concern is that Meta may have abused WhatsApp’s dominance by:

• Restricting market access for rival AI chatbot providers
• Limiting technical development by preventing interoperability
• Strengthening Meta’s own AI ecosystem at the expense of competitors

Such conduct, if proven, could amount to an abuse under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Importantly, the authority emphasised that even contractual terms—rather than explicit bans—can have exclusionary effects when imposed by a dominant platform.

‍

Meta’s Response and Infrastructure Argument

‍

Meta has openly condemned the Italian ruling as “fundamentally flawed,” arguing that third-party AI chatbots represent a major economic burden to the infrastructure and risk the performance, safety, and user enjoyment of WhatsApp.

Although the protection of infrastructure is a valid issue of concern, competition authorities commonly look at whether the justifications for such restrictions are appropriate and non-discriminatory. One of the principal legal issues is whether the restrictions imposed by Meta were applied in a uniform manner or whether they were selectively imposed in favour of Meta's AI services. If the restrictions are asymmetrical in application, they may be viewed as anti-competitive rather than as legitimate technical safeguards.

‍

Link to the EU’s Digital Markets Framework

‍

The Italian case fits into a wider EU context in relation to their efforts to regulate the actions of large technology companies with the use of prior (ex-ante) regulation as contained in the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA has put in place obligations on a set of gatekeepers to make available to third parties on a non-discriminatory basis in order to maintain equitable access, interoperability and no discrimination against those parties.

While the Italian case has been brought pursuant to an Italian competition law, its philosophy is consistent with that of the DMA in that dominant digital platforms should not undertake actions that use their control over their core products and services to prevent other companies from being able to innovate. The trend with some EU national regulators is to be increasingly willing to take swift action through the application of interim measures rather than await many years for final decisions.

‍

Implications for AI Developers and Platforms

‍

The Italian order signifies to developers of AI-based chatbots that competitive access to AI technology via messaging services is an important factor for regulatory bodies. The order also serves as a warning to the large incumbent organisations that are establishing a foothold in the messaging services market to integrate AI into their already established platforms that they will not be protected from competition laws.

Additionally, the overall case showcases the growing consensus amongst regulatory agencies regarding the role of competition in the development of AI. If a handful of large companies are allowed to control both the infrastructure and the AI technology being operated on top of that infrastructure, the result will likely be the development of closed ecosystems that eliminate or greatly reduce the potential for technology diversity.

‍

Conclusion 

‍

Italy's move against Meta highlights a significant intersection between competitive laws and artificial intelligence. The Italian antitrust authority has reinforced the principle that digital gatekeepers cannot use contractual methods to block off access to competition in targeting WhatsApp's restrictive terms. As AI becomes a larger part of our day to day digital services, regulatory bodies will likely continue to increase their scrutiny on platform behaviour. The result of this investigation will impact not just the Metaverse's AI strategy, but also create a baseline for future European regulators' methods of balancing innovation versus competition versus consumer choice in an increasingly AI-driven digital marketplace. 

‍

References 

‍

1. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-halt-whatsapp-terms-barring-rival-ai-chatbots-2025-12-24/ 
2. https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/24/italy-tells-meta-to-suspend-its-policy-that-bans-rival-ai-chatbots-from-whatsapp/ 
3. https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-to-halt-whatsapp-terms-barring-rival-ai-chatbots/
4. https://www.techinasia.com/news/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-halt-whatsapp-terms-ai-bot 

‍

A few of us were sitting together, talking shop - which, for moms, inevitably circles back to children, their health and education. Mothers of teenagers were concerned that their children seemed to spend an excessive amount of time online and had significantly reduced verbal communication at home. 

Reena shared that she was struggling to understand her two boys, who had suddenly transformed from talkative, lively children into quiet, withdrawn teenagers. 

Naaz nodded. “My daughter is glued to her device. I just can’t get her off it! What do I do, girls? Any suggestions?”

Mou sighed, “And what about the rising scams? I keep warning my kids about online threats, but I’m not sure I’m doing enough.”

Not just scams, those come later. What worries me more are the videos and photos of unsuspecting children being edited and misused on digital platforms,” added Reena.

The Digital Parenting Dilemma

For parents, it’s a constant challenge—allowing children internet access means exposing them to potential risks while restricting it invites criticism for being overly strict.

‘What do I do?’ is a question that troubles many parents, as they know how addictive phones and gaming devices can be. (Fun fact: Even parents sometimes struggle to resist endlessly scrolling through social media!)

‘What should I tell them, and when?’ This becomes a pressing concern when parents hear about cyberbullying, online grooming, or even cyberabduction.

‘How do I ensure they stay cybersafe?’ This remains an ongoing worry, as children grow and their online activities evolve.

Whether it’s a single-child, dual-income household, a two-child, single-income family, or any other combination, parents have their hands full managing work, chores, and home life. Sometimes, children have to be left alone—with grandparents, caregivers, or even by themselves for a few hours—making it difficult to monitor their digital lives. While smartphones help parents stay connected and track their child’s location, they can also expose children to risks if not used responsibly.

Breaking It Down

Start cybersafety discussions early and tailor them to your child’s age.

For simplicity, let’s categorize learning into five key age groups:

• 0 – 2 years
• 3 – 7 years
• 8 – 12 years
• 13 – 16 years
• 16 – 19 years

Let’s explore the key safety messages for each stage.

Reminder:

‍

Children will always test boundaries and may resist rules. The key is to lead by example—practice cybersafety as a family.

0 – 2 Years: Newborns & Infants

Pediatricians recommend avoiding screen exposure for children under two years old. If you occasionally allow screen time (for example, while changing them), keep it to a minimum. Children are easily distracted—use this to your advantage.

What can you do?

• Avoid watching TV or using mobile devices in front of them.
• Keep activity books, empty boxes, pots, and ladles handy to engage them.

‍

3 – 7 Years: Toddlers & Preschoolers

‍

Cybersafety education should ideally begin when a child starts engaging with screens. At this stage, parents have complete control over what their child watches and for how long.

What can you do?

• Keep screen time limited and fully supervised.
• Introduce basic cybersecurity concepts, such as stranger danger and good picture vs. bad picture.‍
• Encourage offline activities—educational toys, books, and games.
• Restrict your own screen time when your child is awake to set a good example.
• Set up parental controls and create child-specific accounts on devices.Secure all devices with comprehensive security software.

8 – 12 Years: Primary & Preteens

Cyber-discipline should start now. Strengthen rules, set clear boundaries, and establish consequences for rule violations.

What can you do?

• Increase screen time gradually to accommodate studies, communication, and entertainment.
• Teach them about privacy and the dangers of oversharing personal information.
• Continue stranger-danger education, including safe/unsafe websites and apps.
• Emphasize reviewing T&Cs before downloading apps.Introduce concepts like scams, phishing, deepfakes, and virus attacks using real-life examples.
• Keep banking and credit card credentials private—children may unintentionally share sensitive information.

Cyber Safety Mantras:

• STOP. THINK. ACT.
• Do Not Trust Blindly Online.‍‍

13 – 16 Years: The Teenage Phase

Teenagers are likely to resist rules and demand independence, but if cybersecurity has been a part of their upbringing, they will tolerate parental oversight.

What can you do?

• Continue parental controls but allow greater access to previously restricted content.
• Encourage open conversations about digital safety and online threats.
• Respect their need for privacy but remain involved as a silent observer.
• Discuss cyberbullying, harassment, and online reputation management.
• Keep phones out of bedrooms at night and maintain device-free zones during family time.
• Address online relationships and risks like dating scams, sextortion, and trafficking.

16 – 19 Years: The Transition to Adulthood

By this stage, children have developed a sense of responsibility and maturity. It’s time to gradually loosen control while reinforcing good digital habits.

What can you do?

• Monitor their online presence without being intrusive.Maintain open discussions—teens still value parental advice.
• Stay updated on digital trends so you can offer relevant guidance.
• Encourage digital balance by planning device-free family outings.

Final Thoughts

As a parent, your role is not just to set rules but to empower your child to navigate the digital world safely. Lead by example, encourage responsible usage, and create an environment where your child feels comfortable discussing online challenges with you.

Wishing you a safe and successful digital parenting journey!

‍

Executive Summary

A viral image claims that an Israeli helicopter shot down in South Lebanon. This investigation evaluates the possible authenticity of the picture, concluding that it was an old photograph, taken out of context for a more modern setting.

‍

Claims

The viral image circulating online claims to depict an Israeli helicopter recently shot down in South Lebanon during the ongoing conflict between Israel and militant groups in the region.

‍

Factcheck:

Upon Reverse Image Searching, we found a post from 2019 on Arab48.com with the exact viral picture.

‍

‍

‍

Thus, reverse image searches led fact-checkers to the original source of the image, thus putting an end to the false claim.

There are no official reports from the main news agencies and the Israeli Defense Forces that confirm a helicopter shot down in southern Lebanon during the current hostilities.

Conclusion

Cyber Peace Research Team has concluded that the viral image claiming an Israeli helicopter shot down in South Lebanon is misleading and has no relevance to the ongoing news. It is an old photograph which has been widely shared using a different context, fueling the conflict. It is advised to verify claims from credible sources and not spread false narratives.

• Claim: Israeli helicopter recently shot down in South Lebanon
• Claimed On: Facebook
• Fact Check: Misleading, Original Image found by Google Reverse Image Search

‍