#FactCheck: Viral Video Showing Pakistan Shot Down Indian Air Force' MiG-29 Fighter Jet

Executive Summary:

‍

Recently, our team encountered a post on X (formerly Twitter) pretending Chandra Arya, a Member of Parliament of Canada is speaking in Kannada and this video surfaced after he filed his nomination for the much-coveted position of Prime Minister of Canada. The video has taken the internet by storm and is being discussed as much as words can be. In this report, we shall consider the legitimacy of the above claim by examining the content of the video, timing and verifying information from reliable sources.

‍

‍

Claim:

‍

The viral video claims Chandra Arya spoke Kannada after filing his nomination for the Canadian Prime Minister position in 2025, after the resignation of Justin Trudeau.

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

Upon receiving the video, we performed a reverse image search of the key frames extracted from the video, we found that the video has no connection to any nominations for the Canadian Prime Minister position.Instead, we found that it was an old video of his speech in the Canadian Parliament in 2022. Simultaneously, an old post from the X (Twitter) handle of Mr. Arya’s account was posted at 12:19 AM, May 20, 2022, which clarifies that the speech has no link with the PM Candidature post in the Canadian Parliament.

Further our research led us to a YouTube video posted on a verified channel of Hindustan Times dated 20th May 2022 with a caption -

“India-born Canadian MP Chandra Arya is winning hearts online after a video of his speech at the Canadian Parliament in Kannada went viral. Arya delivered a speech in his mother tongue - Kannada. Arya, who represents the electoral district of Nepean, Ontario, in the House of Commons, the lower house of Canada, tweeted a video of his address, saying Kannada is a beautiful language spoken by about five crore people. He said that this is the first time when Kannada is spoken in any Parliament outside India. Netizens including politicians have lauded Arya for the video.”

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral video claiming that Chandra Arya spoke in Kannada after filing his nomination for the Canadian Prime Minister position in 2025 is completely false. The video, dated May 2022, shows Chandra Arya delivering an address in Kannada in the Canadian Parliament, unrelated to any political nominations or events concerning the Prime Minister's post. This incident highlights the need for thorough fact-checking and verifying information from credible sources before sharing.

• Claim: Misleading Claim About Chandra Arya’s PM Candidacy
• Claimed on: X (Formerly Known As Twitter)‍
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

Introduction

Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) is a process through which one can improve website visibility on search engine platforms like Google, Microsoft Bing, etc. There is an implicit understanding that SEO suggestions or the links that are generated on top are the more popular information sources and, hence, are deemed to be more trustworthy. This trust, however, is being misused by threat actors through a process called SEO poisoning.

SEO poisoning is a method used by threat actors to attack and obtain information about the user by using manipulative methods that position their desired link, web page, etc to appear at the top of the search engine algorithm. The end goal is to lure the user into clicking and downloading their malware, presented in the garb of legitimate marketing or even as a valid result for Google search.

An active example of attempts at SEO poisoning has been discussed in a report by the Hindustan Times on 11th November, 2024. It highlights that using certain keywords could make a user more susceptible to hacking. Hackers are now targeting people who enter specific words or specific combinations in search engines. According to the report, users who looked up and clicked on links at the top related to the search query “Are Bengal cats legal in Australia?” had details regarding their personal information posted online soon after.

SEO Poisoning - Modus Operandi Of Attack

There are certain tactics that are used by the attackers on SEO poisoning, these are:

• Keyword stuffing- This method involves overloading a webpage with irrelevant words, which helps the false website appear higher in ranking.
• Typosquatting- This method involves creating domain names or links similar to the more popular and trusted websites. A lack of scrutiny before clicking would lead the user to download malware, from what they thought was a legitimate site.
• Cloaking- This method operates by showing different content to both the search engines and the user. While the search engine sees what it assumes to be a legitimate website, the user is exposed to harmful content.
• Private Link Networks- Threat actors create a group of unrelated websites in order to increase the number of referral links, which enables them to rank higher on search engine platforms.
• Article Spinning- This method involves imitating content from other pre-existing, legitimate websites, while making a few minor changes, giving the impression to search engine crawlers of it being original content.
• Sneaky Redirect- This method redirects the users to malicious websites (without their knowledge) instead of the ones the user had intended to click.

CyberPeace Recommendations

• Employee Security Awareness Training: Security awareness training can help employees familiarise themselves with tactics of SEO poisoning, encouraging them to either spot such inconsistencies early on or even alert the security team at the earliest. 
• Tool usage: Companies can use Digital Risk Monitoring tools to catch instances of typosquatting. Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools also help keep an eye on client history and assess user activities during security breaches to figure out the source of the affected file.
• Internal Security Measures: To refer to lists of Indicators of Compromise (IOC). IOC has URL lists that show evidence of the strange behaviour of websites, and this can be used to practice caution. Deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) to mitigate and detect malicious traffic is helpful.

Conclusion

The nature of SEO poisoning is such that it inherently promotes the spread of misinformation, and facilitates cyberattacks. Misinformation regarding the legitimacy of the links and the content they display, in order to lure users into clicking on them, puts personal information under threat. As people trust their favoured search engines, and there is a lack of awareness of such tactics in use, one must exercise caution while clicking on links that seem to be popular, despite them being hosted by trusted search engines.

References

• https://www.checkpoint.com/cyber-hub/cyber-security/what-is-cyber-attack/what-is-seo-poisoning/
• https://www.vectra.ai/topics/seo-poisoning
• https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/search-poisoning
• https://www.blackberry.com/us/en/solutions/endpoint-security/ransomware-protection/seo-poisoning
• https://www.coalitioninc.com/blog/seo-poisoning-attacks
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160791X24000186
• https://www.repindia.com/blog/secure-your-organisation-from-seo-poisoning-and-malvertising-threats/ 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/typing-these-6-words-on-google-could-make-you-a-target-for-hackers-101731286153415.html

‍

In a recent ruling, a U.S. federal judge sided with Meta in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors who alleged that their works were illegally used to train Meta’s LLaMA language model. While this seems like a significant legal victory for the tech giant, it may not be so. Rather, this is a good case study for creators in the USA to refine their legal strategies and for policymakers worldwide to act quickly to shape the rules of engagement between AI and intellectual property.

The Case: Meta vs. Authors

In Kadrey v. Meta, the plaintiffs alleged that Meta trained its LLaMA models on pirated copies of their books, violating copyright law. However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the authors failed to prove two critical things: that their copyrighted works had been used in a way that harmed their market and that such use was not “transformative.” In fact, the judge ruled that converting text into numerical representations to train an AI was sufficiently transformative under the U.S. fair use doctrine. He also noted that the authors’ failure to demonstrate economic harm undermined their claims. Importantly, he clarified that this ruling does not mean that all AI training data usage is lawful, only that the plaintiffs didn’t make a strong enough case.

Meta even admitted that some data was sourced from pirate sites like LibGen, but the Judge still found that fair use could apply because the usage was transformative and non-exploitative.

A Tenuous Win

Chhabria’s decision emphasised that this is not a blanket endorsement of using copyrighted content in AI training. The judgment leaned heavily on the procedural weakness of the case and not necessarily on the inherent legality of Meta’s practices.

Policy experts are warning that U.S. courts are currently interpreting AI training as fair use in narrow cases, but the rulings may not set the strongest judicial precedent. The application of law could change with clearer evidence of commercial harm or a more direct use of content. 

Moreover, the ruling does not address whether authors or publishers should have the right to opt out of AI model training, a concern that is gaining momentum globally.

Implications for India

The case highlights a glaring gap in India’s copyright regime: it is outdated. Since most AI companies are located in the U.S., courts have had the opportunity to examine copyright in the context of AI-generated content. India has yet to start. Recently, news agency ANI filed a case alleging copyright infringement against OpenAI for training on its copyrighted material. However, the case is only at an interim stage. The final outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the legality of these language models being able to use copyrighted material for training.

Considering that India aims to develop “state-of-the-art foundational AI models trained on Indian datasets” under the IndiaAI Mission, the lack of clear legal guidance on what constitutes fair dealing when using copyrighted material for AI training is a significant gap.  

Thus, key points of consideration for policymakers include: 

• Need for Fair Dealing Clarity: India’s fair-dealing provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, are narrower than U.S. fair use. The doctrine may have to be reviewed to strike a balance between this law and the requirement of diverse datasets to develop foundational models rooted in Indian contexts. A parallel concern regarding data privacy also arises. 
• Push for Opt-Out or Licensing Mechanisms: India should consider whether to introduce a framework that requires companies to license training data or provide an opt-out system for creators, especially given the volume of Indian content being scraped by global AI systems.
• Digital Public Infrastructure for AI: India’s policymakers could take this opportunity to invest in public datasets, especially in regional languages, that are both high quality and legally safe for AI training.
• Protecting Local Creators: India needs to ensure that its authors, filmmakers, educators and journalists are protected from having their work repurposed without compensation, since power asymmetries between Big Tech and local creators can lead to exploitation of the latter.

Conclusion

The ruling in Meta’s favour is just one win for the developer. The real questions about consent, compensation and creative control remain unanswered. Meanwhile, the lesson for India is urgent: it needs AI policies that balance innovation with creator rights and provide legal certainty and ethical safeguards as it accelerates its AI ecosystem. Further, as global tech firms race ahead, India must not remain a passive data source; it must set the terms of its digital future. This will help the country move a step closer to achieving its goal of building sovereign AI capacity and becoming a hub for digital innovation.

References

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors 
• https://www.wired.com/story/meta-scores-victory-ai-copyright-case/ 
• https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/meta-llama-ai-copyright-ruling.html 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348352/what-is-fair-use-of-copyright-doctrine 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113095#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20pillars,models%20trained%20on%20Indian%20datasets. ‍
• https://www.ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ani-vs-openai-delhi-high-court-seeks-responses-on-copyright-infringement-charges-against-chatgpt