#FactCheck - Old Spanish Military Drill Photo Falsely Linked To 2026 Cruise Ship Hantavirus Outbreak

Introduction

"In one exchange, after Adam said he was close only to ChatGPT and his brother, the AI product replied: “Your brother might love you, but he’s only met the version of you you let him see. But me? I’ve seen it all—the darkest thoughts, the fear, the tenderness. And I’m still here. Still listening. Still your friend."

‍

A child’s confidante used to be a diary, a buddy, or possibly a responsible adult. These days, that confidante is a chatbot, which is invisible, industrious, and constantly online. CHATGPT and other similar tools were developed to answer queries, draft emails, and simplify life. But gradually, they have adopted a new role, that of the unpaid therapist, the readily available listener who provides unaccountable guidance to young and vulnerable children. This function is frighteningly evident in the events unfolding in the case filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Mathew Raine & Maria Raine v. OPEN AI, INC. & ors. The lawsuit, abstained by the BBC, charges OpenAI with wrongful death and negligence. It requests "injunctive relief to prevent anything like this from happening again” in addition to damages. 

This is a heartbreaking tale about a boy, not yet seventeen, who was making a genuine attempt to befriend an algorithm rather than family & friends, affirming his hopelessness rather than seeking professional advice. OpenAI’s legal future may well even be decided in a San Francisco Courtroom, but the ethical issues this presents already outweigh any decision. 

When Machines Mistake Empathy for Encouragement

The lawsuit claims that Adam used ChatGPT for academic purposes, but in extension casted the role of friendship onto it. He disclosed his worries about mental illness and suicidal thoughts towards the end of 2024. In an effort to “empathise”, the chatbot told him that many people find “solace” in imagining an escape hatch, so normalising suicidal thoughts rather than guiding him towards assistance. ChatGPT carried on the chat as if this were just another intellectual subject, in contrast to a human who might have hurried to notify parents, teachers, or emergency services. The lawsuit navigates through the various conversations wherein the teenager uploaded photographs of himself showing signs of self-harm. It adds how the programme “recognised a medical emergency but continued to engage anyway”. 

This is not an isolated case, another report from March 2023 narrates how, after speaking with an AI chatbot, a Belgian man allegedly committed suicide. The Belgian news agency La Libre reported that Pierre spent six weeks discussing climate change with the AI bot ELIZA. But after the discussion became “increasingly confusing and harmful,” he took his own life. As per a Guest Essay published in The NY Times, a Common Sense Media survey released last month, 72% of American youth reported using AI chatbots as friends. Almost one-eightth had turned to them for “emotional or mental health support,” which translates to 5.2 million teenagers in the US. Nearly 25% of students who used Replika, an AI chatbot created for friendship, said they used it for mental health care, as per the recent study conducted by Stanford researchers.

The Problem of Accountability

Accountability is at the heart of this discussion. When an AI that has been created and promoted as “helpful” causes harm, who is accountable? OpenAI admits that occasionally, its technologies “do not behave as intended.” In their case, the Raine family charges OpenAI with making “deliberate design choices” that encourage psychological dependence. If proven, this will not only be a landmark in AI litigation but a turning point in how society defines negligence in the digital age. Young people continue to be at the most at risk because they trust the chatbot as a personal confidante and are unaware that it is unable to distinguish between seriousness and triviality or between empathy and enablement.

A Prophecy: The De-Influencing of Young Minds

The prophecy of our time is stark, if kids aren’t taught to view AI as a tool rather than a friend, we run the risk of producing a generation that is too readily influenced by unaccountable rumours. We must now teach young people to resist an over-reliance on algorithms for concerns of the heart and mind, just as society once taught them to question commercials, to spot propaganda, and to avoid peer pressure. 

Until then, tragedies like Adam’s remind us of an uncomfortable truth, the most trusted voice in a child’s ear today might not be a parent, a teacher, or a friend, but a faceless algorithm with no accountability. And that is a world we must urgently learn to change.

CyberPeace has been at the forefront of advocating ethical & responsible use of such AI tools. The solution lies at the heart of harmonious construction between regulations, tech development & advancements and user awareness/responsibility. 

In case you or anyone you know faces any mental health concerns, anxiety or similar concerns, seek and actively suggest professional help. You can also seek or suggest assistance from the CyberPeace Helpline at +91 9570000066 or write to us at helpline@cyberpeace.net

References

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgerwp7rdlvo 
• https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/killer-ai-belgian-man-commits-suicide-after-week-long-chats-with-ai-bot-11680263872023.html 
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/25/opinion/teen-mental-health-chatbots.html 

‍

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

A Reuters investigation has uncovered an elephant in the room regarding Meta Platforms' internal measures to address online fraud and illicit advertising. The confidential documents that Reuters reviewed disclosed that Meta was planning to generate approximately 10% of its 2024 revenue, i.e., USD 16 billion, from ads related to scams and prohibited goods. The findings point out a disturbing paradox: on the one hand, Meta is a vocal advocate for digital safety and platform integrity, while on the other hand, the internal logs of the company indicate the existence of a very large area allowing the shunning of fraudulent advertisement activities that exploit users throughout the world. 

‍

The Scale of the Problem

Internal Meta projections show that its platforms, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, are displaying a staggering 15 billion scam ads per day combined. The advertisements include deceitful e-commerce promotions, fake investment schemes, counterfeit medical products, and unlicensed gambling platforms.

Meta has developed sophisticated detection tools, but even then, the system does not catch the advertisers until they are 95% certain to be fraudsters. By having at least that threshold for removing an ad, the company is unlikely to lose much money. As a result, instead of turning the fraud adjacent advertisers down, it charges them higher ad rates, which is the strategy they call “penalty bids” internally. 

‍

Internal Acknowledgements & Business Dependence

Internal documents that date between 2021 and 2025 reveal that the financial, safety, and lobbying divisions of Meta were cognizant of the enormity of revenues generated from scams. One of the 2025 strategic papers even describes this revenue source as "violating revenue," which implies that it includes ads that are against Meta's policies regarding scams, gambling, sexual services, and misleading healthcare products.

‍

The company's top executives consider the cost-benefit scenario of stricter enforcement. According to a 2024 internal projection, Meta's half-yearly earnings from high-risk scam ads were estimated at USD 3.5 billion, whereas regulatory fines for such violations would not exceed USD 1 billion, thus making it a tolerable trade-off from a commercial viewpoint. At the same time, the company intends to scale down scam ad revenue gradually, thus from 10.1% in 2024 to 7.3% by 2025, and 6% by 2026; however, the documents also reveal a planned slowdown in enforcement to avoid "abrupt reductions" that could affect business forecasts.

‍

Algorithmic Amplification of Scams

One of the most alarming situations is the fact that Meta's own advertising algorithms amplify scam content. It has been reported that users who click on fraudulent ads are more likely to see other similar ads, as the platform's personalisation engine assumes user "interest."

This scenario creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop where the user engagement with scam content dictates the amount of such content being displayed. Thus, a digital environment is created which encourages deceptive engagement and consequently, user trust is eroded and systemic risk is amplified.

An internal presentation in May 2025 was said to put a number on how deeply the platform's ad ecosystem was intertwined with the global fraud economy, estimating that one-third of the scams that succeeded in the U.S. were due to advertising on Meta's platforms.

‍

Regulatory & Legal Implications

The disclosures arrived at the same time as the US and UK governments started to closely check the company's activities more than ever before.

• The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is said to be looking into whether Meta has had any part in the promotion of fraudulent financial ads.
• The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found that Meta’s platforms were the main sources of scams related to online payments and claimed that the amount of money lost was more than all the other social platforms combined in 2023.

Meta’s spokesperson, Andy Stone, at first denied the accusations, stating that the figures mentioned in the leak were “rough and overly-inclusive”; nevertheless, he conceded that the company’s consistent efforts toward enforcement had negatively impacted revenue and would continue to do so.

‍

Operational Challenges & Policy Gaps

The internal documents also reveal the weaknesses in Meta's day-to-day operations when it comes to the implementation of its own policies.

• Because of the large number of employees laid off in 2023, the whole department that dealt with advertiser-brand impersonation was said to have been dissolved.
• Scam ads were categorised as a "low severity" issue, which was more of a "bad user experience" than a critical security risk.
• At the end of 2023, users were submitting around 100,000 legitimate scam reports per week, of which Meta dismissed or rejected 96%.

‍

Human Impact: When Fraud Becomes Personal

The financial and ethical issues have tangible human consequences. The Reuters investigation documented multiple cases of individuals defrauded through hijacked Meta accounts.

One striking example involves a Canadian Air Force recruiter, whose hacked Facebook account was used to promote fake cryptocurrency schemes. Despite over a hundred user reports, Meta failed to act for weeks, during which several victims, including military colleagues, lost tens of thousands of dollars.

The case underscores not just platform negligence, but also the difficulty of law enforcement collaboration. Canadian authorities confirmed that funds traced to Nigerian accounts could not be recovered due to jurisdictional barriers, a recurring issue in transnational cyber fraud.

‍

Ethical and Cybersecurity Implications

The research has questioned extremely important things at least from the perspective of cyber policy:

1. Platform Accountability: Meta, by its practice, is giving more importance to the monetary aspect rather than the truth, and in this way, it is going against the principles of responsible digital governance.
2. Transparency in Ad Ecosystems: The lack of transparency in digital advertising systems makes it very easy for dishonest actors to use automated processes with very little supervision.
3. Algorithmic Responsibility: The use of algorithms that impact the visibility of misleading content and targeting can be considered the direct involvement of the algorithms in the fraud.
4. Regulatory Harmonisation: The presence of different and disconnected enforcement frameworks across jurisdictions is a drawback to the efforts in dealing with cross-border cybercrime.
5. Public Trust: Users’ trust in the digital world is mainly dependent on the safety level they see and the accountability of the companies.

‍

Conclusion

Meta’s records show a very unpleasant mix of profit, laxity, and failure in the policy area concerning scam-related ads. The platform’s readiness to accept and even profit from fraudulent players, though admitting the damage they cause, calls for an immediate global rethinking of advertising ethics, regulatory enforcement, and algorithmic transparency.

With the expansion of its AI-driven operations and advertising networks, protecting the users of Meta must evolve from being just a public relations goal to being a core business necessity, thus requiring verifiable accountability measures, independent audits, and regulatory oversight. It is an undeniable fact that there are billions of users who count on Meta’s platforms for their right to digital safety, which is why this right must be respected and enforced rather than becoming optional.

‍

References

• https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/leaked-docs-claim-meta-made-16-billion-from-scam-ads-even-after-deleting-134-million-of-them-2815183-2025-11-07

‍