#FactCheck - AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Iran’s Attack on Israeli Nuclear Site

Introduction

Bumble’s launch of its ‘Opening Move’ feature has sparked a new narrative on safety and privacy within the digital dating sphere and has garnered mixed reactions from users. It was launched against the backdrop of women stating that the ‘message first’ policy of Bumble was proving to be tedious. Addressing the large-scale review, Bumble launched its ‘Opening Move’ feature, whereby users can either craft or select from pre-set questions which potential matches may choose to answer to start the conversation at first glance. These questions are a segue into meaningful and insightful conversation from the get-go and overstep the traditional effort to start engaging chats between matched users. This feature is an optional feature that users may enable and as such does not prevent a user from exercising the autonomy previously in place.

Innovative Approach to Conversation Starters

Many users consider this feature as innovative; not only does it act as a catalyst for fluid conversation but also cultivates insightful dialogue, fostering meaningful interactions that are devoid of the constraint of superficial small talk. The ‘Opening Moves’ feature may also be aligned with unique scientific research indicating that individuals form their initial attractions within 3-seconds of intimate interaction, thereby proving to be a catalyst to the decision-making process of an individual in the attraction time frame. 

Organizational Benefits and Data Insights

From an organisational standpoint, the feature is a unique solution towards localisation challenges faced by apps; the option of writing a personalised ‘Opening Move’ implies setting prompts that are culturally relevant and appropriate in a specific area. Moreover, it is anticipated that Bumble may enhance and improve user experience within the platform through data analysis. Data from responses to an ‘Opening Move’ may provide valuable insights into user preferences and patterns by analysing which pre-set prompts garner more responses over others and how often is a user-written ‘Opening Move’ successful in obtaining a response in comparison with Bumble’s pre-set prompts. A quick glance at Bumble’s privacy policy[1] shows that data storing and transferring of chats between users are not shared with third parties, further safeguarding personal privacy. However,  Bumble does use the chat data for its own internal purposes after removing personally identifiable information from chats. The manner of such review and removal of data has not been specified, which may raise challenges depending upon whether the reviewer is a human or an algorithm.

However, some users perceive the feature as counterproductive to the company’s principle of ‘women make the first move’. While Bumble aims to market the feature as a neutral ground for matched users based on the exercise of choice, users see it as a step back into the heteronormative gender expectations that most dating apps conform to, putting the onus of the ‘first move’ on men. Many male users have complained that the feature acts as a catalyst for men to opt out of the dating app and would most likely refrain from interacting with profiles enabled with the ‘Opening Move’ feature, since the pressure to answer in a creative manner is disproportionate with the likelihood their response actually being entertained.[2] Coupled with the female users terming the original protocol as ‘too much effort’, the preset questions of the ‘Opening Move’ feature may actively invite users to categorise potential matches according to arbitrary questions that undermine real-life experiences, perspectives and backgrounds of each individual.[3]

Additionally, complications are likely to arise when a notorious user sets a question that indirectly gleans personal or sensitive, identifiable information. The individual responding may be bullied or be subjected to hateful slurs when they respond to such carefully crafted conversation prompts.

Safety and Privacy Concerns

On the corollary, the appearance of choice may translate into more challenges for women on the platform. The feature may spark an increase in the number of unsolicited, undesirable messages and images from a potential match. The most vulnerable groups at present remain individuals who identify as females and other sexual minorities.[4] At present, there appears to be no mechanism in place to proactively monitor the content of responses, relying instead on user reporting. This approach may prove to be impractical given the potential volume of objectionable messages, necessitating a more efficient solution to address this issue. It is to be noted that in spite of a user reporting, the current redressal systems of online platforms remain lax, largely inadequate and demonstrate ineffectiveness in addressing user concerns or grievances. This lack of proactiveness is violative of the right to redressal provided under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. It is thought that the feature may actually take away user autonomy that Bumble originally aimed to grant since Individuals who identify as introverted, shy, soft-spoken, or non-assertive may refrain from reporting harassing messages altogether, potentially due to discomfort or reluctance to engage in confrontation. Resultantly, it is anticipated that there would be a sharp uptake in cases pertaining to cyberbullying, harassment and hate speech (especially vulgar communications) towards both the user and the potential match. 

From an Indian legal perspective, dating apps have to adhere to the Information Technology Act, 2000 [5], the Information Technology (Intermediary and Digital Media Ethics) Rules 2021 [6] and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, that regulates a person’s digital privacy and set standards on the kind of content an intermediary may host. An obligation is cast upon an intermediary to uprise its users on what content is not allowed on its platform in addition to mandating intimation of the user’s digital rights. The lack of automated checks, as mentioned above, is likely to make Bumble non-compliant with the ethical guidelines. 

The optional nature of the ‘Opening Move’ grants users some autonomy. However, some technical updates may enhance the user experience of this feature. Technologies like AI are an effective aid in behavioural and predictive analysis. An upgraded ‘matching’ algorithm can analyse the number of un-matches a profile receives, thereby identifying and flagging a profile having multiple lapsed matches. Additionally, the design interface of the application bearing a filter option to filter out flagged profiles would enable a user to be cautious while navigating through the matches. Another possible method of weeding out notorious profiles is by deploying a peer-review system of profiles whereby a user has a singular check-box that enables them to flag a profile. Such a checkbox would ideally be devoid of any option for writing personal comments and would bear a check box stating whether the profile is most or least likely to bully/harass. This would ensure that a binary, precise response is recorded and any coloured remarks are avoided. [7]

Governance and Monitoring Mechanisms

From a governance point of view, a monitoring mechanism on the manner of crafting questions is critical. Systems should be designed to detect certain words/sentences and a specific manner of framing sentences to disallow questions contrary to the national legal framework. An onscreen notification having instructions on generally acceptable manner of conversations as a reminder to users to maintain cyber hygiene while conversing is also proposed as a mandated requirement for platforms. The notification/notice may also include guidelines on what information is safe to share in order to safeguard user privacy. Lastly, a revised privacy policy should establish the legal basis for processing responses to ‘Opening Moves’, thereby bringing it in compliance with national legislations such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Conclusion

Bumble's 'Opening Move' feature marks the company’s ‘statement’ step to address user concerns regarding initiating conversations on the platform. While it has been praised for fostering more meaningful interactions, it also raises not only ethical concerns but also concerns over user safety. While the 'Opening Move' feature can potentially enhance user experience, its success is largely dependent on Bumble's ability to effectively navigate the complex issues associated with this feature. A more robust monitoring mechanism that utilises newer technology is critical to address user concerns and to ensure compliance with national laws on data privacy.

Endnotes:

• [1] Bumble’s privacy policy https://bumble.com/en-us/privacy  
• [2] Discussion thread, r/bumble, Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Bumble/comments/1cgrs0d/women_on_bumble_no_longer_have_to_make_the_first/?share_id=idm6DK7e0lgkD7ZQ2TiTq&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1&rdt=65068 
• [3] Mcrea-Hedley, Olivia, “Love on the Apps: When did Dating Become so Political?”, 8 February 2024 https://www.service95.com/the-politics-of-dating-apps/ 
• [4] Gewirtz-Meydan, A., Volman-Pampanel, D., Opuda, E., & Tarshish, N. (2024). ‘Dating Apps: A New Emerging Platform for Sexual Harassment? A Scoping Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 752-763. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162969 
• [5]  Information Technology Act, 2000 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf 
• [6]  Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics) Rules 2021 https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology%20%28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%29-.pdf 
• [7]  Date Confidently: Engaging Features in a Dating App (Use Cases), Consaguous, 10 July 2023 https://www.consagous.co/blog/date-confidently-engaging-features-in-a-dating-app-use-cases  

‍

For more than a century, cinema has evolved alongside technology. Sound transformed silent films, colour changed visual storytelling, computer-generated imagery expanded the limits of imagination, and streaming reshaped how audiences experience films. Each transformation brought uncertainty, but Artificial Intelligence represents a different kind of shift. It is not merely changing how films are made; it is beginning to challenge who, or what, gets to create and perform them.

This debate has moved from theory to reality with Tilly Norwood, an AI-generated performer created by Particle 6 through its AI talent division Xicoia. After months of discussion surrounding the role of artificial performers in entertainment, Norwood is now set to headline her own feature film, Misaligned which is a project that places artificial intelligence at the centre of both the production process and the story itself. The film is described as a comedy-drama following an AI character without a tangible existence. The story follows that, guided by another AI character, she begins developing ambitions, emotions, and a desire to understand what it means to become “human” The premise of the movie is intentionally self-reflective. An AI performer, whose very existence has raised questions about authenticity and creativity, will now portray a character experiencing those same conflicts.

‍

AI as storyteller?

‍

Using Artificial Intelligence in filmmaking is not recent, for years production studios have used technology for visual effects, editing assistance, restoration, recommendation systems, and production planning. The emergence of AI-generated performers, however, introduces a far more complex question, can AI replace the actors who are core to storytelling?

When Tilly was first introduced at the Zurich film festival in late 2025 by the Dutch producer Eline Van Der Velden, CEO and Founder of Particle 6,  introduced it as a hybrid model of film-making, where there are directors, producers, production team but a "synthetic performer" in the lead role and a comprehensive AI-experts team. Van Der Velden argued that human creativity was not being replaced but supplemented by AI.

This was not well received by the film community. Actors like Emily Blunt and SAG-AFTRA (the Screen Actors Guild- American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) a US labor organization representing roughly 160,000 professionals across the entertainment and media industries, including actors, performers, journalists, musicians, and voice actors, released a statement condemning this project with synthetic performer. They emphasised that ‘creativity is, and should remain, human-centered. The union is opposed to the replacement of human performers by synthetics.’ 

‍

The Question of Authenticity

‍

Acting has historically been understood as an interpretation of human experience. Performers bring personal histories, emotions, cultural backgrounds, and individual perspectives into their roles.  The criticism is that an AI actor does not exist in a tangible form and essentially has no real story or background of any kind. Particle 6 describes Tilly only as a twenty-something who lives in London and loves coffee which is a very shallow context and has no personality at all. The film is also set in the fictional "Tillyverse," not a real place and exists on some cloud system reinforcing the sense that there is no lived reality behind the character.

At their core, AI performers are outputs of generative systems rather than individuals with lived experience or personal artistic interpretation. These systems learn by identifying patterns from vast datasets and generating results based on existing material, which raises questions about whether such performances can be considered original creative expression at all. Tilly Norwood's music video ‘Taking the Lead’ illustrated this gap in practice, drawing attention to inconsistencies in natural emotion, visual continuity, and expression across scenes.

Human actors, by contrast, bring authenticity and emotional depth shaped by real experience and creative interpretation which are qualities that recognition and awards have traditionally been built around. If a performance is produced through algorithms trained on existing creative patterns, a fundamental question follows: what exactly is being celebrated, the technology, the final output, or the humans guiding the system?

‍

Creativity, Consent, and the Legal Grey Areas

‍

AI performers also raise significant questions about intellectual property, personality rights, consent, and compensation. Existing legal and contractual frameworks were primarily designed around human performers who are individuals who negotiate compensation, own aspects of their identity, and participate in the wider cultural ecosystem surrounding cinema. However, an AI actor challenges these traditional assumptions. If a digital performer does not possess legal personhood, creative ownership, or independent rights, questions emerge regarding who should receive recognition and financial benefits: the developers, production studios, directors, or the human creators involved in building the technology?

Also if a digital actor’s expressions, movements, or style are influenced by thousands of existing performers, determining ownership becomes complicated. Who controls an AI-generated performance? Who deserves credit? Should performers have rights over how their likeness, voice, or style influences future AI systems?

‍

Any advantages?

‍

The most significant advantage of AI-assisted filmmaking may lie in what it offers smaller production houses and independent creators. By reducing certain production costs, AI tools could let filmmakers with limited resources attempt ambitious ideas that were previously out of reach. Beyond this production advantage, however, the acceptance of AI performers themselves remains uncertain. Projects like Misaligned are therefore less a proven shift in cinema than an industry experiment testing how far technology can move into a traditionally human creative space.

‍

The Future of Cinema: Replacement or Reinvention?

‍

Every major technological transformation in cinema has created fears about what might be lost, yet cinema has consistently adapted by absorbing new technologies into its storytelling. AI may follow a similar path, but the stakes are different as it does not simply change the tools available to artists, it challenges the definitions of creativity, authorship, and performance itself.

Much of cinema's economic and cultural life is really built on the bond between audiences and actors. It's actors who drive ticket sales, build loyal fan followings, and become cultural figures in their own right, through interviews, public appearances, and the visible journey of training, struggle, and growth that shapes a career. An AI-generated performer can mimic parts of that celebrity image, but it can't actually show up for any of it the way a person can. Handing central creative roles to artificial personalities also raises a fairness question, especially at a time when so many human performers are already struggling to find work.

Whether audiences will really embrace fully synthetic performers as stand-ins for human actors is still an open question. Misaligned may end up being the first real test of that. Early reaction to Tilly Norwood has been largely critical within the industry and among audiences. How viewers respond to Misaligned itself will be an early test of whether that scepticism holds. 

Cinema has always found ways to absorb new technology, but AI is testing something deeper than the tools filmmakers use. As machines get better at telling human stories, the real challenge is making sure the human element behind those stories doesn't get lost.

‍

References

‍

• https://theprint.in/feature/tilly-norwood-tillyverse-misaligned-particle6-ai-actor/2980654/
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tilly-norwood-ai-generated-actor-feature-film/ 
• https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-statement-synthetic-performer
• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ai-actor-tilly-norwood-movie-debut-misaligned-1236638719/

‍

‍

Executive Summary


A video of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Thalapathy Vijay is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that he reached Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and participated in an ongoing protest. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the viral claim to be misleading. During the research, we found an official clarification issued by the Delhi Police, which clearly refuted the claim and stated that the video was being shared with a false context.

‍

Claim

A user on social media platform Instagram shared the viral video claiming that Thalapathy Vijay had reached Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and joined a protest there.

https://www.instagram.com/reels/Da-tsmSpC-V/ 

https://archive.ph/submit/?url 

https://www.instagram.com/reels/Da-tsmSpC-V/ 

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted multiple keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found a similar image posted on Instagram on May 5, 2026, which contained visuals matching the viral video. The post did not mention any connection with a protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DX8cmt6oqP9/ 

‍

‍

Further research revealed that the first major on-ground protest of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) was organised at Jantar Mantar on June 6, 2026. This confirms that the viral video, which is being linked to the CJP protest, is being shared with an incorrect context.

‍

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/delhi/story/cockroach-janta-party-protest-at-jantar-mantar-against-exam-irregularities-cjp-seeks-education-minister-dharmendra-pradhans-resignation-2922949-2026-06-06?utm_source 

‍

‍

During further verification, we found a report published by BBC Tamil on May 4, 2026, which carried visuals similar to the viral video. https://www.bbc.com/tamil/articles/c202nd32v5ro 

‍

According to the BBC report, TVK (Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam) leader Vijay won from the Perambur and Tiruchirappalli East assembly constituencies during the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The visuals in the viral video are related to Vijay’s political activities in Tamil Nadu and are not from Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. Additionally, the Delhi Police issued an official clarification stating that the claim linking the video to Jantar Mantar was false.

https://x.com/DCPNewDelhi/status/2078932755023577234?s=20

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found that the viral video of Thalapathy Vijay is not from a protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. The video is being circulated with a false and misleading claim. The Delhi Police has also officially denied the claim. Users are advised not to share such misleading content without verification.

‍