What’s Your New Year's Resolution?

Executive Summary

A video circulating on social media shows a woman using abusive language in front of a camera. Users sharing the clip claim that the woman is a professor at Galgotias University and that the video exposes her alleged reality. However, an research  by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The probe revealed that the woman seen in the viral video has no connection with Galgotias University and is not a professor there.Fact-checking further showed that the video is not recent but around seven years old. The woman featured in the clip was identified as Shubhrastha, who is a political strategist by profession.

‍

Claim:

‍

A user on X (formerly Twitter) shared the viral video on February 18, 2026, claiming: “A ‘class in abuse studies’ at Galgotias University? An obscene video of a professor teaching ethics has gone viral. Another shameful chapter has been added to the list of controversies surrounding Galgotias University.” The post further alleged that after falsely claiming a Chinese robot as its own, the university’s “Culture and Ethics” faculty member was seen publicly using abusive language in the viral clip. The post link and its archived version are provided below:

‍

• https://x.com/UNNEWS_24X7/status/2024064255142797649
• https://archive.ph/yjzTE 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we extracted key frames from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research , we found the same video uploaded on the Indian Spectator’s YouTube channel on June 9, 2018

‍

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx103szHCVI 

‍

‍

The video was also found on another YouTube channel, where it had been uploaded on June 12, 2018.

‍

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNpJmNk4jDc

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The research  clearly establishes that the woman seen in the viral video has no association with Galgotias University and is not a professor there. The clip is also not recent but approximately seven years old. The woman in the video was identified as Shubhrastha, a political strategist.

‍

Introduction

In this age, when our data stands as the key to all resources, espionage has moved from dark alleys and trench coats to keyboards and code. In this era of active digital espionage, where intelligence is stolen through invisible cyberattacks that target computer networks. Cyber espionage and spying have become the most critical threat in the hyper-connected world of today. As governments, corporations, and individuals store an immense amount of confidential information online, the grounds of espionage have shifted from land and sea to the silent realm of cyberspace. 

What is Cyber Espionage? 

Cyber espionage refers to the unauthorised access of confidential data for strategic, political, military, and financial gain, unlike cybercrime, which is mostly about money. Cyber espionage is about gaining information power. The very first documented case dates back to 1986-87, when a group of German hackers breached the US military establishment and the defence systems and sold that stolen data to the Soviets and the KGB. This was the beginning of a new era where classified intelligence could be gathered even without entering a building. 

Cyber espionage is mostly carried out by trained espionage professionals, elite hackers, and corporate spies whose sole purpose is to target the government, research organisations, military establishments, and other critical infrastructures.   

The Objective

The act of Cyber Espionage is being driven by three major objectives, such as;

• Stealing of Intellectual Property- Starting from information and data related to military establishments to pharmaceutical patents, stealing innovation is cheaper than funding R&D. 
• Political and Diplomatic Advantage- As government networks are hacked to access state secrets, negotiation strategies, and classified communications.
• Military Intelligence- Cyber spies also work to steal data on weapons troop movements, defence systems, and war systems, often years before conflict breaks out. 

In a world being shaped by digital power, information is not just about knowledge. Rather, it is all about ensuring dominance. 

The arsenal of modern digital spies is more sophisticated, and most importantly, they are used covertly rather than the spy gadgets that are shown in spy movies. Some of the tactics resorted to by the cyber spies can be recognised as; 

• Phishing Attacks through fake emails that lure victims to click on malicious links or sharing of passwords. 
• Persisting Advanced Threats through long-term stealth attacks in a network for more than a month or a year. 
• Malware and Spyware are invisible software that logs keystrokes, records screens, or steals files silently. 
• Deepfake Manipulations by creating AI-generated fake videos that can influence political developments in the country. 

Anything that makes cyber espionage terrifying is not just the theft, but the fact that it goes undetected. 

What Differentiates Cyber Espionage and Cyber Warfare

Cyber espionage is a silent and stealthy tactic that is carried out with utmost secrecy, being a long-term effort for intelligence gathering. It mostly focuses on the stealing of data, whereas Cyber warfare is an open and destructive tactic that is used to create an immediate and visible impact to create disruption. However, espionage is an act that prepares the battlefield for the warfare of the future. 

Taking instances of real instances of cyber espionage, we can refer to examples such as; 

• Operation Aurora was conducted in 2010, where Chinese Hackers based in Beijing tried to steal IP data from Google and American tech giants. 
• The Stuxnet attack in 2010 was another cyber weapon that was developed to sabotage Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. 
•  SolarWinds Attack of 2020 was an instance of cyber espionage where a supply chain hack was carried out to target multiple US federal government agencies. 

As most of these instances reflect that they were battles without guns, but with the use of codes. Several sources raise the question of whether cyber-attacks can be stopped. The answer lies in the fact that they cannot be stopped completely, but can be minimised to some extent, by developing capabilities to counter and deter cyber-attacks with the help of equal cyber defence capabilities. 

Conclusion 

From the Cold War era to the present Code War, espionage has evolved with technology. An effort that was once taken solely by spies and human assets, with the passing of time enhancement of technologies it is now expanded to malware, phishing, social engineering, and remote digital inflation. In this age of information warfare, espionage is faster, cheaper, and harder to trace than ever before. The enemies of a nation may never cross its borders, but they may already be inside its systems. However, the world has now officially entered a new battlefield, without boundaries, uniforms, and bombs. It is now being fought through bytes, breaches, and invisible enemies.  

References

• https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/threat-intelligence/cyber-espionage/
• https://www.espiamos.com/en/content/espionage-in-the-digital-world-threats-and-opportunities.html
• https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/information-technology/resources/what-is-cyber-warfare/
• https://pride-security.co.uk/the-rise-of-digital-warfare-understanding-the-evolution-of-cyber-espionage/

‍

Introduction

‍

Misinformation is no longer a challenge limited to major global platforms or widely spoken languages. In India and many other countries, false information is increasingly disseminated through local and vernacular languages, allowing it to reach communities more directly and intimately. While regional language content has played a crucial role in expanding access to information, it has also emerged as a powerful driver of misinformation by bad actors, and it often becomes harder to detect and counter. The challenge of local language misinformation is not merely digital in nature; it is deeply social, cultural, and shaped by specific local contexts.

‍

Why Local-Language Misinformation Is More Impactful

‍

A person’s mother tongue can be a highly effective medium for misinformation because it carries emotional resonance and a sense of authenticity. Information that aligns with an individual’s linguistic and cultural background is often trusted the most. When false narratives are framed using familiar expressions, local references, or community-specific concerns, they are more readily accepted and shared more widely.

Misinformation in a language like English, which is more heavily moderated, does not usually have the same impact as content in vernacular languages. In the latter case, such content tends to circulate within closed networks such as family WhatsApp groups, regional Facebook pages, local YouTube channels, and community forums. These spaces are often perceived as safe or trusted, which lowers scepticism and encourages the spread of unverified information.

‍

The Role of Digital Platforms and Algorithms

‍

Although social media platforms have opened up access to the content of regional languages, the moderation mechanisms have not kept up. The automated control systems for content are frequently trained mainly on the dominant languages, thus missing the detection of vernacular speech, slang, dialects, and code-mixing. 

This results in a disparity in the enforcement of laws where misinformation in local languages:

• Doesn’t go through automated fact-checking tools
• Is subject to human moderation takes place at a slower pace
• Is less prone to being reported or flagged
• Gains unrestrained access for a longer time period than first imagined

The problem is further magnified by algorithmic amplification. Content that triggers very strong emotional reactions fear, anger, pride, or outrage, has a higher chance of being promoted, irrespective of its truthfulness. In regional situations, such content may very quickly sway public opinion even in very closely knit communities.

‍

Forms of Vernacular Misinformation

‍

Local-language misinformation appears in various forms:

‍

• Health misinformation, with such examples as panic remedies, vaccine myths, and misleading medical prescriptions
• Political misinformation, which is mostly identified with regional identity, local grievances, or community narratives
• Rumours regarding disasters that are very hard to control and spread hatred during floods, earthquakes, or other public emergencies
• Economic and financial frauds that are perpetrated via the local dialect authorities or trusted institutions
• Cultural and religious untruths, which are based on exploiting the core of the beliefs

‍

The regional aspect of such misinformation makes it very difficult to be corrected because the fact-checks in other languages may not get to that audience.

‍

Community-Level Consequences

‍

The effect of misinformation in local languages is not only about the misdirection of individuals. It can also:

‍

• Negatively affect the process of public institutions gaining trust
• Support social polarisation and communal strife
• Get in the way of public health measures
• Help shape the decision-making process in elections at the grassroots level
• Take advantage of the digitally illiterate poor people

In a lot of scenarios, the damage done is not instant but rather accumulative, thus changing perceptions and supporting false worldviews more.

‍

Why Countering Vernacular Misinformation Is Difficult

‍

Multiple structural layers make it difficult to respond effectively:

‍

1. Variety of Languages: Just in India, there are many languages and dialects, which are very hard to monitor universally.
2. Culturally Aware Systems: The local languages sometimes bear meanings that are deeply rooted in the culture, such as by using sarcasm or referring to history, and automated systems are unable to interpret it correctly.
3. Reporting Not Common: Users might not spot misinformation or may not want to be a part of the struggle by showing the content shared by reliable members of the community.
4. Insufficient Fact-Checking Capacity: Resources are often unavailable for fact-checking organisations to perform their duties worldwide in different languages effectively.

‍

Building a Community-Centric Response

‍

Overcoming misinformation in local languages needs a community-driven resilience approach instead of a platform-centric one. Some of the key actions are: 

‍

• Boosting Digital Literacy: Users will be able to question, verify, and put the content on hold before sharing it, thanks to the regional language awareness campaigns that will be conducted.
• Facilitating Local Fact-Checkers: Local journalists, educators, and NGOs are the main players in providing the context for verification.
• Accountability of Platforms: It is necessary for technology companies to support global moderation in several languages, the hiring of local experts, and the implementation of transparent enforcement mechanisms.
• Contemplating Policy and Governance: Regulatory frameworks should facilitate proactive risk assessment while controlling the right to free expression.
• Establishment of Trusted Local Intermediaries: Community leaders, health workers, teachers, and local organisations can engage in preventing misinformation among the networks that they are trusted in.

‍

The Way Forward

‍

Misinformation in local languages is not a minor concern; it is an issue that directly affects the future of digital trust. As the number of users accessing the internet through local language interfaces continues to grow, the volume and influence of regional content will also increase. If measures do not include all language groups, misinformation will remain least corrected and most influential at the community level, where it is also the hardest to identify and address.

Such a problem exists only if the power of language is not recognised. Therefore, one can say that it is necessary to protect the quality of information in local languages, not only for digital safety but for other factors as well, such as social cohesion, democratic participation, and public well-being.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Vernacular content has the potential to be very powerful in the ways it can inform, include and empower; meanwhile, if it goes unmonitored, it has the same potential to mislead, divide, and harm. Mis-disinformation in local languages calls for the cooperation of platforms, regulators, NGOs, and the communities involved. To win over the digital ecosystem, it has to speak all languages, not only for communication but also for protection.

‍

References

‍

• https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/2/15
• https://afpr.in/regional-languages-shaping-indias-online-discourse/
• https://medium.com/@pratikgsalvi03/how-indias-misinformation-surge-and-media-credibility-crisis-are-undermining-democracy-public-dc8ad7be8e12
• https://projectshakti.in/
• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02683962211037693
• https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-Library/volume-8-issue-11/505-518.pdf
• https://www.irjmets.com/upload_newfiles/irjmets71200016652/paper_file/irjmets71200016652.pdf

‍