#Factcheck-Viral Image of Men Riding an Elephant Next to a Tiger in Bihar is Misleading
Executive Summary:
A post on X (formerly Twitter) featuring an image that has been widely shared with misleading captions, claiming to show men riding an elephant next to a tiger in Bihar, India. This post has sparked both fascination and skepticism on social media. However, our investigation has revealed that the image is misleading. It is not a recent photograph; rather, it is a photo of an incident from 2011. Always verify claims before sharing.
Claims:
An image purporting to depict men riding an elephant next to a tiger in Bihar has gone viral, implying that this astonishing event truly took place.
Fact Check:
After investigation of the viral image using Reverse Image Search shows that it comes from an older video. The footage shows a tiger that was shot after it became a man-eater by forest guard. The tiger killed six people and caused panic in local villages in the Ramnagar division of Uttarakhand in January, 2011.
Before sharing viral posts, take a brief moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly and it’s far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
Conclusion:
The claim that men rode an elephant alongside a tiger in Bihar is false. The photo presented as recent actually originates from the past and does not depict a current event. Social media users should exercise caution and verify sensational claims before sharing them.
- Claim: The video shows people casually interacting with a tiger in Bihar
- Claimed On:Instagram and X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A video of Swatantra Bhardwaj is being shared on social media. Another man can also be seen with Bhardwaj in the video. Swatantra Bhardwaj came into the spotlight following an alleged assault involving the father of a protester during a protest by the Cockroach Janta Party at Jantar Mantar. Social media posts claim that the video was recorded immediately after his release from jail and shows him openly threatening people. CyberPeace Research Wing’s Research found the viral claim to be false. Our Research revealed that the video being shared on social media is old. Swatantra Bhardwaj was released from jail on September 17, while our Research found that the video has been available online since June. Therefore, the claim that the video was recorded immediately after Bhardwaj’s release from jail is misleading.
Claim:
A Facebook user shared the viral video on September 17, 2026, with the caption: “The Indian judicial system has failed once again... Swatantra Bhardwaj has started again immediately after coming out, even though the court has imposed a condition that he will not make any statements to the media. But listen to what he is saying.” The post link, archive link, and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1349048917301713
Fact Check
To verify the date of Swatantra Bhardwaj’s release from jail, we searched Google using relevant keywords. During the search, we found a report published by Aaj Tak on September 18, 2026. According to the report, social media influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj, who came into the spotlight following an alleged assault during a protest at Jantar Mantar, was released from Delhi’s Tihar Jail on September 17, 2026, after being granted bail by the court and completing the necessary legal formalities. Soon after walking out of the main gate of the jail, he ran towards a taxi and left without speaking to the media personnel present there. The post link and screenshot are provided below.
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we conducted a reverse image search of the keyframes from the video. During the search, we found the same video on a YouTube channel, where it was published on September 7, 2026. Meanwhile, the report mentioned above clearly states that Swatantra Bhardwaj was released from Delhi’s Tihar Jail on September 17, 2026. The report link and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3V0pwJbpwg
At the end of our Research, we found another version of the same video, which was uploaded by a person identified as Vaibhav Kumar on June 26, 2026. The post link and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaBs7Q-T8xc/
Conclusion
Our Research found that the video being shared on social media is old. Swatantra Bhardwaj was released from jail on September 17, while our Research found that the video had already been available online since June. Therefore, the claim that the video was recorded immediately after Bhardwaj’s release from jail is misleading.
Executive Summary:
A viral video (archive link) claims General Upendra Dwivedi, Chief of Army Staff (COAS), admitted to losing six Air Force jets and 250 soldiers during clashes with Pakistan. Verification revealed the footage is from an IIT Madras speech, with no such statement made. AI detection confirmed parts of the audio were artificially generated.
Claim:
The claim in question is that General Upendra Dwivedi, Chief of Army Staff (COAS), admitted to losing six Indian Air Force jets and 250 soldiers during recent clashes with Pakistan.
Fact Check:
Upon conducting a reverse image search on key frames from the video, it was found that the original footage is from IIT Madras, where the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) was delivering a speech. The video is available on the official YouTube channel of ADGPI – Indian Army, published on 9 August 2025, with the description:
“Watch COAS address the faculty and students on ‘Operation Sindoor – A New Chapter in India’s Fight Against Terrorism,’ highlighting it as a calibrated, intelligence-led operation reflecting a doctrinal shift. On the occasion, he also focused on the major strides made in technology absorption and capability development by the Indian Army, while urging young minds to strive for excellence in their future endeavours.”
A review of the full speech revealed no reference to the destruction of six jets or the loss of 250 Army personnel. This indicates that the circulating claim is not supported by the original source and may contribute to the spread of misinformation.
Further using AI Detection tools like Hive Moderation we found that the voice is AI generated in between the lines.
Conclusion:
The claim is baseless. The video is a manipulated creation that combines genuine footage of General Dwivedi’s IIT Madras address with AI-generated audio to fabricate a false narrative. No credible source corroborates the alleged military losses.
- Claim: AI-Generated Audio Falsely Claims COAS Admitted to Loss of 6 Jets and 250 Soldiers
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
.webp)
Introduction
Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU.
Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis
Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta.
Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.
For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.
For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models.
The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.
Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.
Future Impact Outlook
- The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age.
- The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations.
- Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.
Conclusion
Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.
Reference:
- https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106
- https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/
- https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/
- https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/
