#Fact Check: Old Photo Misused to Claim Israeli Helicopter Downed in Lebanon!

Executive Summary:

A morphed video of the actor Anup Soni popular on social media promoting IPL betting Telegram channel is found to be fake. The audio in the morphed video is produced through AI voice cloning. AI manipulation was identified by AI detection tools and deepfake analysis tools. In the original footage Mr Soni explains a case of crime, a part of the popular show Crime Patrol which is unrelated to betting.  Therefore, it is important to draw the conclusion that Anup Soni is in no way associated with the betting channel.

‍

Claims:

The facebook post claims the IPL betting Telegram channel which belongs to Rohit Khattar is promoted by Actor Anup Soni.

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the post, the CyberPeace Research Team closely analyzed the video and found major discrepancies which are mostly seen in AI-manipulated videos. The lip sync of the video does not match the audio. Taking a cue from this we analyzed using a Deepfake detection tool by True Media. It is found that the voice of the video is 100% AI-generated. 

We then extracted the audio and checked in an audio Deepfake detection tool named Hive Moderation. Hive moderation found the audio to be 99.9% AI-Generated.

‍

We then divided the video into keyframes and reverse searched one of the keyframes and found the original video uploaded by the YouTube channel named LIV Crime.

Upon analyzing we found that in the 3:18 time frame the video was edited, and altered with an AI voice.

‍

Hence, the viral video is an AI manipulated video and it’s not real. We have previously debunked such AI voice manipulation with different celebrities and politicians to misrepresent the actual context. Netizens must be careful while believing in such AI manipulation videos.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the viral video claiming that  IPL betting Telegram channel promotion by actor Anup Soni is false. The video has been manipulated using AI voice cloning technology, as confirmed by both the Hive Moderation AI detector and the True Media AI detection tool. Therefore, the claim is baseless and misleading.

• Claim:  An IPL betting Telegram channel belonging to Rohit Khattar promoted by Actor Anup Soni.
• Claimed on: Facebook
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

Executive Summary:

A viral video has circulated on social media, wrongly showing lawbreakers surrendering to the Indian Army. However, the verification performed shows that the video is of a group surrendering to the Bangladesh Army and is not related to India. The claim that it is related to the Indian Army is false and misleading. 

Claims:

A viral video falsely claims that a group of lawbreakers is surrendering to the Indian Army, linking the footage to recent events in India.

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the viral posts, we analysed the keyframes of the video through Google Lens search. The search directed us to credible news sources in Bangladesh, which confirmed that the video was filmed during a surrender event involving criminals in Bangladesh, not India.

‍

We further verified the video by cross-referencing it with official military and news reports from India. None of the sources supported the claim that the video involved the Indian Army.  Instead, the video was linked to another similar Bangladesh Media covering the news.

‍

No evidence was found in any credible Indian news media outlets that covered the video. The viral video was clearly taken out of context and misrepresented to mislead viewers.

Conclusion:

The viral video claiming to show lawbreakers surrendering to the Indian Army is footage from Bangladesh. The CyberPeace Research Team confirms that the video is falsely attributed to India, misleading the claim.

• Claim: The video shows miscreants surrendering to the Indian Army.  
• Claimed on: Facebook, X, YouTube
• Fact Check: False & Misleading

‍

Introduction

In September 2024, the Australian government announced the  Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 ( CLA Bill 2024 hereon), to provide new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the statutory regulatory body for Australia's communications and media infrastructure, to combat online misinformation and disinformation. It proposed allowing the ACMA to hold digital platforms accountable for the “seriously harmful mis- and disinformation” being spread on their platforms and their response to it, while also balancing freedom of expression. However, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn, primarily over concerns regarding the possibility of censorship by the government. This development is reflective of the global contention on the balance between misinformation regulation and freedom of speech. 

Background and Key Features of the Bill

According to the BBC’s Global Minds Survey of 2023, nearly 73% of Australians struggled to identify fake news and AI-generated misinformation. There has been a substantial rise in misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during major events like the bushfires of 2020 and the 2022 federal elections. The government’s campaign against misinformation was launched against this background, with the launch of The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation in 2021. The main provisions of the CLA Bill, 2024 were: 

1. Core Transparency Obligations of Digital Media Platforms: Publishing current media literacy plans,  risk assessment reports, and policies or information on their approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. The ACMA would also be allowed to make additional rules regarding complaints and dispute-handling processes.
2. Information Gathering and Record-Keeping Powers: The ACMA would form rules allowing it to gather consistent information across platforms and publish it. However, it would not have been empowered to gather and publish user information except in limited circumstances.
3. Approving Codes and Making Standards: The ACMA would have powers to approve codes developed by the industry and make standards regarding reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checking, and demonetisation of disinformation. This would make compliance mandatory for relevant sections of the industry. 
4. Parliamentary Oversight: The transparency obligations, codes approved and standards set by ACMA under the Bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. ACMA would be required to report to the Parliament annually. 
5. Freedom of Speech Protections: End-users would not be required to produce information for ACMA unless they are a person providing services to the platform, such as its employees or fact-checkers. Further,  it would not be allowed to call for removing content from platforms unless it involved inauthentic behavior such as bots. 
6. Penalties for Non-Compliance: ACMA would be required to employ a “graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach” to non-compliance and enforcement in the form of formal warnings, remedial directions, injunctions, or significant civil penalties as decided by the courts, subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). No criminal penalties would be imposed.

Key Concerns

• Inadequacy of Freedom of Speech Protections: The biggest contention on this Bill has been regarding the issue of possible censorship, particularly of alternative opinions that are crucial to the health of a democratic system. To protect the freedom of speech, the Bill defined mis- and disinformation, what constitutes “serious harm” (election interference, harming public health, etc.), and what would be excluded from its scope. However, reservations among the Opposition persisted due to the lack of a clear mechanism to protect divergent opinions from the purview of this Bill. 
• Efficacy of Regulatory Measures: Many argue that by allowing the digital platform industry to make its codes, this law lets it self-police. Big Tech companies have no incentive to curb misinformation effectively since their business models allow them to reap financial benefits from the rampant spread of misinformation. Unless there are financial non- or dis- incentives to curb misinformation, Big Tech is not likely to address the situation at war footing.  Thus, this law would run the risk of being toothless. Secondly, the Bill did not require platforms to report on the “prevalence of” false content which, along with other metrics,  is crucial for researchers and legislators to track the efficacy of the current misinformation-curbing practices employed by platforms.  
• Threat of Government Overreach:  The Bill sought to expand the ACMA’s compliance and enforcement powers concerning misinformation and disinformation on online communication platforms by giving it powers to form rules on information gathering, code registration, standard-making powers, and core transparency obligations. However, even though the ACMA as a regulatory authority is answerable to the Parliament, the Bill was unclear in defining limits to these powers. This raised concerns from civil society about potential government overreach in a domain filled with contextual ambiguities regarding information.

Conclusion

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill sought to equip the ACMA with tools to hold digital platforms accountable and mitigate the harm caused by false information, its critique highlights the complexities of regulating such content without infringing on freedom of speech. Legislations and proposals regarding the matter all over the world are having to contend with this challenge. Globally, legislation and proposals addressing this issue face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for a continuous discourse at the intersection of platform accountability, regulatory restraint, and the protection of diverse viewpoints.

To regulate Big Tech effectively, governments can benefit from adopting a consultative, incremental, and cooperative approach, as exemplified by the European Union’s Digital Services Act 2023. Such a framework provides for a balanced response, fostering accountability while safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Resources

• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-misinformation-disinformation-bill.pdf 
• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation 
• https://www.mi-3.com.au/07-02-2024/over-80-australians-feel-they-may-have-fallen-fake-news-says-bbc 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/misinformation-inquiry 
• https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2024 
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-is-the-misinformation-bill-and-why-has-it-triggered-worries-about-freedom-of-speech/4n3ijebde 
• https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Act%20allows%20authorities,preventing%20incitement%20to%20the%20commission 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/submissions/2024/11/8/submission-combatting-misinformation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation&utm_content=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation+Preview+CID_31c6d7200ed9bd2f7f6f596ba2a8b1fb&utm_source=Email%20campaign&utm_term=Read%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Law%20Centres%20submission%20to%20the%20inquiry

‍