#FactCheck:Viral Video Does Not Show Congress Workers Protesting Against Rahul Gandhi

Introduction
‍

In April 2026, there was a fascinating example of the risks of generative artificial intelligence (AI). An Indian medical student, aged 22, developed a fake AI-driven influencer "Emily Hart" and leveraged the persona to amass a substantial social media following, engagement and revenue. 

It isn't just a case of online fraud. It is a turning point in the nature of influence, veracity, and profitability in the digital world. Ultimately, it poses a troubling question. If users can't tell the difference between real and fake people, then what is online trust?
‍

The Making of a Synthetic Influencer

‍

“Emily Hart” was a young, conservative American nurse. The identity was completely made-up, created with the help of AI programs that produced eerily realistic images, captions and engagement techniques.

The creator did not work with random content. They crafted the influencer to cater to a particular audience. With this in mind, the account was able to target conservatives in the United States who are politically active. It is reported that some of its posts have achieved millions of views, and within a few months, the influencer had thousands of followers.

Monetisation followed naturally. The account owner monetised through subscriptions and the sale of merchandise, reportedly earning thousands of dollars a month with fewer than an hour a day of "work" on the account.

The disproportionate effort and reward is what is interesting about this case. This is a unique example of how people can now use very little capital to create digital personas that attract value.

‍

Why It Worked: Engagement, Identity, and Algorithmic Incentives

‍

The "Emily Hart" case was no accident. It was enabled by three complementary factors.

First, identity targeting was crucial. The persona was constructed to fit a particular worldview and culture, making it more relevant and resonating with the target audience. AI platforms were even deployed to better target and position the persona, and it is suggested that micro-targeting would increase engagement.

Second, it was amplified by algorithms. Social media algorithms favour engagement, sometimes favouring emotional and divisive content. The account exploited this by producing visually appealing content with a strong political message, what the creator called "engageable" content.

Third, the authenticity of the AI content minimised distrust. Generative models have become so realistic that it is hard to tell if images are real or not. Specialists point out that AI increases the credibility and scalability of fake profiles, increasing their influence and reach.

All of this combined to make deception profitable. 

‍

The Blurring of Authenticity in Digital Spaces
‍

The "Emily Hart" phenomenon is emblematic of a broader shift in authenticity. Historically, influence was correlated with human personalities who establish trust over time. But AI upends this paradigm by allowing the creation of entirely fabricated personalities capable of mimicking, and even surpassing, human influencers.

This has two immediate consequences.

First, the truth is harder to discern. While platforms might require that AI-generated content be disclosed, there are inconsistencies in how this is policed. Here, the account apparently didn't disclose until it was banned for fraud.

Second, authenticity may not be as important to consumers. Consumers may view content for ideological or emotional reasons, rather than for its accuracy. This indicates that the rise of synthetic influencers is not just a technical problem but also a behavioural one.

The implication is stark. The internet is evolving into a place where authenticity is more important than truth.
‍

Economic Incentives and the Rise of Synthetic Monetisation
‍

The key difference between this fraud and previous ones is the business model. This creator didn't break into a computer or steal personal information. He cultivated an audience and sold attention.

This is an example of how the internet economy works. Attention is a commodity and platforms aim to generate it. AI reduces the cost of creating attention-generating artefacts, enabling people to amplify their reach.

This gives rise to synthetic monetisation. Online characters can be developed, fine-tuned and leveraged as money-spinning assets. In this case, identity is a product.

This raises regulatory challenges. Current laws on fraud, advertising and consumer protection may not be sufficient to cover cases of deceptive content sourced from an identity.
‍

Platform Responsibility and Enforcement Gaps
‍

The role of platforms in enabling such scenarios cannot be overlooked. Although platforms have policy guidelines on disclosure of AI-generated content, these are inconsistently applied.

In the case of "Emily Hart", the account apparently existed for some time before being shut down for scamming. This implies that either the ability to detect such accounts is weak or the tools used are reactive.

The challenge is structural. Companies are rewarded for engagement, and fake accounts can help to achieve this. But they must also promote authenticity and protect against fraud.

This presents a challenge between commercial interests and user safety. Without enforcement, synthetic influencers will become more prevalent. 
‍

Policy Implications: Rethinking Trust and Verification
‍

^{The "Emi}ly Hart" incident highlights a number of policy issues.

First, disclosure policies must be improved and harmonised. Consumers need to be clear when content is generated by AI, and platforms need to police this.

Second, identity verification needs to be updated. Classic forms of verification may not hold up in an era of imaginary characters amassing legions of fans. Alternative digital verification may be needed.

Third, new regulations should apply to synthetic identities. This means clarifying distinctions between art, commerce and fraud.

Finally, digital literacy becomes critical. Consumers need to be equipped to operate in a space where virtual personas aren't always human.

Conclusion
‍

The rise of "Emily Hart" is not just an example of one person using AI to make money. It is a glimpse of a digital revolution.

AI is redefining how influence can be generated, trust can be established and value can be monetized. As digital personas become more realistic, the distinction between human and machine will remain unclear.

The challenge will not be to stop AI being used to generate content. It is to ensure that the systems that mediate our online interactions are able to tell the difference, and that we are not left on our own to sort it all out.

When anyone can make a convincing identity for themselves, trust will no longer be a given. It will need to be engineered, policed and protected. 

‍

The United Nations in December 2019 passed a resolution that established an open-ended ad hoc committee. This committee was tasked to develop a ‘comprehensive international convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes’. The UN Convention on Cybercrime is an initiative of the UN member states to foster the principles of international cooperation and establish legal frameworks to provide mechanisms for combating cybercrime. The negotiations for the convention had started in early 2022. It became the first binding international criminal justice treaty to have been negotiated in over 20 years upon its adoption by the UN General Assembly.  

This convention addresses the limitations of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime by encircling a broader range of issues and perspectives from the member states. The UN Convention against Cybercrime will open for signature at a formal ceremony hosted in Hanoi, Viet Nam, in 2025. The convention will finally enter into force 90 days after being ratified by the 40th signatory.

Objectives and Features of the Convention

• The UN Convention against Cybercrime addresses various aspects of cybercrime. These include prevention, investigation, prosecution and international cooperation. 
• The convention aims to establish common standards for criminalising cyber offences. These include offences like hacking, identity theft, online fraud, distribution of illegal content, etc. It outlines procedural and technical measures for law enforcement agencies for effective investigation and prosecution while ensuring due process and privacy protection. 
• Emphasising the importance of cross-border collaboration among member states, the convention provides mechanisms for mutual legal assistance, extradition and sharing of information and expertise. The convention aims to enhance the capacity of developing countries to combat cybercrime through technical assistance, training, and resources. 
• It seeks to balance security measures with the protection of fundamental rights. The convention highlights the importance of safeguarding human rights and privacy in cybercrime investigations and enforcement.
• The Convention emphasises the importance of prevention through awareness campaigns, education, and the promotion of a culture of cybersecurity. It encourages collaborations through public-private partnerships to enhance cybersecurity measures and raise awareness, such as protecting vulnerable groups like children, from cyber threats and exploitation.

Key Provisions of the UN Cybercrime Convention

Some key provisions of the Convention are as follows:

• The convention differentiates cyber-dependent crimes like hacking from cyber-enabled crimes like online fraud. It defines digital evidence and establishes standards for its collection, preservation, and admissibility in legal proceedings.
• It defines offences against confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and includes unauthorised access, interference with data, and system sabotage. Further, content-related offences include provisions against distributing illegal content, such as CSAM and hate speech. It criminalises offences like identity theft, online fraud and intellectual property violations.
• LEAs are provided with tools for electronic surveillance, data interception, and access to stored data, subject to judicial oversight. It outlines the mechanisms for cross-border investigations, extradition, and mutual legal assistance.
• The establishment of a central body to coordinate international efforts, share intelligence, and provide technical assistance includes the involvement of experts from various fields to advise on emerging threats, legal developments, and best practices.

Comparisons with the Budapest Convention

The Budapest Convention was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at the 109th Session on 8 November 2001. This Convention was the first international treaty that addressed internet and computer crimes. A comparison between the two Conventions is as follows:

• The global participation in the UNCC is inclusive of all UN member states whereas the latter had primarily European with some non-European signatories. 
• The scope of the UNCC is broader and covers a wide range of cyber threats and cybercrimes, whereas the Budapest convention is focused on specific offences like hacking and fraud. 
• UNCC strongly focuses on privacy and human rights protections and the Budapest Convention had limited focus on human rights.
• UNCC has extensive provisions for assistance to developing countries and this is in contrast to the Budapest Convention which did not focus much on capacity building.

Future Outlook

The development of the UNCC was a complex process. The diverse views on key issues have been noted and balancing different legal systems, cultural perspectives and policy priorities has been a challenge. The rapid technology evolution that is taking place requires the Convention to be adaptable to effectively address emerging cyber threats. Striking a balance remains a critical concern. The Convention aims to provide a blended approach to tackling cybercrime by addressing the needs of countries, both developed and developing.

Conclusion

The resolution containing the UN Convention against Cybercrime is a step in global cooperation to combat cybercrime. It was adopted without a vote by the 193-member General Assembly and is expected to enter into force 90 days after ratification by the 40th signatory. The negotiations and consultations are finalised for the Convention and it is open for adoption and ratification by member states. It seeks to provide a comprehensive legal framework that addresses the challenges posed by cyber threats while respecting human rights and promoting international collaboration. 

References

• https://consultation.dpmc.govt.nz/un-cybercrime-convention/principlesandobjectives/supporting_documents/Background.pdf 
• https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/12/1158521 
• https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2024/INTERPOL-welcomes-adoption-of-UN-convention-against-cybercrime#:~:text=The%20UN%20convention%20establishes%20a,and%20grooming%3B%20and%20money%20laundering 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/united-nations-adopts-landmark-global-treaty-to-combat-cybercrime-19529854.htm 

Introduction

The global food industry is vast and complex, influencing consumer behaviour, policy, and health outcomes worldwide. However, misinformation within this sector is pervasive, with significant consequences for public health and market dynamics. Misinformation can arise from various sources, including misleading marketing campaigns, unsubstantiated health claims, and misrepresentation of food production practices through public endorsement or otherwise. Nutrition misinformation is one such example. The promotion of false or unproven products for profit can lead to mislead consumers and affect their interests. Misleading claims and inaccurate information about the nutritional value of food products and processes are common claims. The misinformation created about food on the global stage distorts public understanding of nutrition, food safety, and environmental impacts, leading to significant consequences for public health, consumer trust, and the economy.

Rise of Nutritional Misinformation and Consumer Distrust

Health and nutrition-related misinformation is one of the most prevalent types in the food sector. Businesses frequently advertise their products as "natural" or "healthy" without providing sufficient data to back up these claims, tricking customers into buying goods that might be heavy in fat, sugar, or salt. Words like "superfood" are frequently used without supporting evidence from science, giving the impression that they are healthier.

Misinformation also impacts the sustainability and ethics of food production. Claims of "sustainable" or "ethical" sourcing are frequently exaggerated or fabricated, leaving consumers unaware of the true environmental and social costs associated with certain products.

This lack of clarity is not only observed in general food trends but also within organisations meant to provide trustworthy information. There has been significant criticism, directed at the International Food Information Council (IFIC), for their alleged promotion of nutrition-based misinformation to safeguard the interests of large food corporations, resulting in potentially compromising public health. The preemptive claims that IFIC made about the nutritive claims have been questioned by the National Institutes of Health, USA in November 2022. They reported in their study that IFIC promotes food and beverage company interests and undermines the accurate dissemination of scientific evidence related to diet and health. This was in support of the objective of the study, which was to determine whether, there have been many claims that the nutritional value of certain foods or diets may be manipulated to favour business goals, leaving consumers misinformed about what constitutes a truly healthy diet.

Another source of misinformation is the growing ‘Free-From’ fad. The “free-from” label in the US is a food category of products that claim to be free from certain ingredients or chemicals. It has been steadily growing by 7% annually. These labels often tout products as healthier due to a simpler ingredient list. Although seemingly harmless, transparency in ingredient disclosure is often obscured in the 'free-from' trend. This can lead to consumer distrust in the long run, making them hesitant.

The Harmful Effects of Food Misinformation

The effects of misinformation about nutrition and food safety can directly affect public health.
Consumers unknowingly may accept false claims or avoid certain foods without scientific basis and adopt harmful dietary habits, potentially leading to malnutrition or other health problems. By the time the realisation sets in about being misled, their trust is eroded not only towards such companies but also towards the regulators. This distrust can lead to declining consumer confidence and disrupt market stability. 

Some food-related misinformation downplays the environmental impact that certain food production practices have. An example of such a situation is the promotion of meat alternatives as being entirely eco-friendly without considering all environmental factors. This can mislead consumers and obscure the complex environmental effects of food production systems. 

Misinformation can distort consumer purchasing habits, potentially leading to a reduced demand for certain products and unfair competition. The sufferers in this case are the small-scale producers who suffer disproportionately, while the large corporations might use this misinformation to maintain their dominance in the market. Regulatory checks, open communication, and public education campaigns are needed to combat mis/disinformation in the global food sector and enable consumers to make decisions that are sustainable, healthful and informed.

CyberPeace Recommendations

• Unfair trade practices like providing misleading information or unchecked claims on food products should be better addressed by the regulators. Companies must provide clear, transparent and accurate information about their products as mandated under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018. This information should include the true origins, production methods, and nutritional content on their labels.
• Promotions of initiatives and investments by public health organisations and food authorities towards educating consumers and improving food literacy should encouraged. 
• Regulating social media endorsement is also crucial to prevent the spread of misinformation and unchecked claims. Without proper due diligence on product details, influencers may unknowingly mislead their audience, causing potential harm. 
• The Social Media Platforms can partner with nutritionists, dietitians, and other health professionals who are content creators, as they can help in understanding and promoting accurate, science-based nutrition information and debunk any misleading claims.
• Campaigns should be encouraged to spread public awareness about the harms of food-related misleading claims or trends. Emphasis should be on evidence-based nutritional guidance. The ongoing research towards food safety, nutrition, and true information should be actively communicated to keep the public informed. Combating food misinformation requires more robust regulations, improved transparency, and heightened consumer awareness and vigilance.

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/label-claims-on-packaged-food-could-be-misleading-icmr/articleshow/110053363.cms 
• https://www.outlookindia.com/hub4business/empowering-change-freedom-food-alliance-takes-on-global-food-industry-misinformation 
• https://insightsnow.com/misinformation-hurting-food-business/ ‍
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9618198/pdf/12992_2022_Article_884.pdf