#FactCheck - Stunning 'Mount Kailash' Video Exposed as AI-Generated Illusion!
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A viral video is surfacing claiming to capture an aerial view of Mount Kailash that has breathtaking scenery apparently providing a rare real-life shot of Tibet's sacred mountain. Its authenticity was investigated, and authenticity versus digitally manipulative features were analyzed.
CLAIMS:
The viral video claims to reveal the real aerial shot of Mount Kailash, as if exposing us to the natural beauty of such a hallowed mountain. The video was circulated widely in social media, with users crediting it to be the actual footage of Mount Kailash.
FACTS:
The viral video that was circulated through social media was not real footage of Mount Kailash. The reverse image search revealed that it is an AI-generated video created by Sonam and Namgyal, two Tibet based graphic artists on Midjourney. The advanced digital techniques used helped to provide a realistic lifelike scene in the video.
No media or geographical source has reported or published the video as authentic footage of Mount Kailash. Besides, several visual aspects, including lighting and environmental features, indicate that it is computer-generated.
For further verification, we used Hive Moderation, a deep fake detection tool to conclude whether the video is AI-Generated or Real. It was found to be AI generated.
CONCLUSION:
The viral video claiming to show an aerial view of Mount Kailash is an AI-manipulated creation, not authentic footage of the sacred mountain. This incident highlights the growing influence of AI and CGI in creating realistic but misleading content, emphasizing the need for viewers to verify such visuals through trusted sources before sharing.
- Claim: Digitally Morphed Video of Mt. Kailash, Showcasing Stunning White Clouds
- Claimed On: X (Formerly Known As Twitter), Instagram
- Fact Check: AI-Generated (Checked using Hive Moderation).
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
A viral photo on social media claims to show a ruined bridge in Kerala, India. But, a reality check shows that the bridge is in Amtali, Barguna district, Bangladesh. The reverse image search of this picture led to a Bengali news article detailing the bridge's critical condition. This bridge was built-in 2002 to 2006 over Jugia Khal in Arpangashia Union. It has not been repaired and experiences recurrent accidents and has the potential to collapse, which would disrupt local connectivity. Thus, the social media claims are false and misleading.
Claims:
Social Media users share a photo that shows a ruined bridge in Kerala, India.
Fact Check:
On receiving the posts, we reverse searched the image which leads to a Bengali News website named Manavjamin where the title displays, “19 dangerous bridges in Amtali, lakhs of people in fear”. We found the picture on this website similar to the viral image. On reading the whole article, we found that the bridge is located in Bangladesh's Amtali sub-district of Barguna district.
Taking a cue from this, we then searched for the bridge in that region. We found a similar bridge at the same location in Amtali, Bangladesh.
According to the article, The 40-meter bridge over Jugia Khal in Arpangashia Union, Amtali, was built in 2002 to 2006 and was never repaired. It is in a critical condition, causing frequent accidents and risking collapse. If the bridge collapses it will disrupt communication between multiple villages and the upazila town. Residents have made temporary repairs.
Hence, the claims made by social media users are fake and misleading.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the viral photo claiming to show a ruined bridge in Kerala is actually from Amtali, Barguna district, Bangladesh. The bridge is in a critical state, with frequent accidents and the risk of collapse threatening local connectivity. Therefore, the claims made by social media users are false and misleading.
- Claim: A viral image shows a ruined bridge in Kerala, India.
- Claimed on: Facebook
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
A photograph showing a massive crowd on a road is being widely shared on social media. The image is being circulated with the claim that people in the United States are staging large-scale protests against President Donald Trump.
However, CyberPeace Foundation’s research has found this claim to be misleading. Our fact-check reveals that the viral photograph is nearly eight years old and has been falsely linked to recent political developments.
Claim:
Social media users are sharing a photograph and claiming that it shows people protesting against US President Donald Trump.An X (formerly Twitter) user, Salman Khan Gauri (@khansalman88177), shared the image with the caption:“Today, a massive protest is taking place in America against Donald Trump.”
The post can be viewed here, and its archived version is available here.
FactCheck:
To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search of the viral photograph using Google. This led us to a report published by The Mercury News on April 6, 2018.
The report features the same image and states that the photograph was taken on March 24, 2018, during the ‘March for Our Lives’ rally in Washington, DC. The rally was organized to demand stricter gun control laws in the United States. The image shows a large crowd gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue in support of gun reform.
The report further notes that the Associated Press, on March 30, 2018, debunked false claims circulating online which alleged that liberal billionaire George Soros and his organizations had paid protesters $300 each to participate in the rally.
Further research led us to a report published by The Hindu on March 25, 2018, which also carries the same photograph. According to the report, thousands of Americans across the country participated in ‘March for Our Lives’ rallies following a mass shooting at a school in Florida. The protests were led by survivors and victims, demanding stronger gun laws.
The objective of these demonstrations was to break the legislative deadlock that has long hindered efforts to tighten firearm regulations in a country frequently rocked by mass shootings in schools and colleges.
Conclusion
The viral photograph is nearly eight years old and is unrelated to any recent protests against President Donald Trump.The image actually depicts a gun control protest held in 2018 and is being falsely shared with a misleading political claim.By circulating this outdated image with an incorrect context, social media users are spreading misinformation.
Introduction
Meta smart glasses are now banned from courts across England and Wales. His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), the body responsible for criminal, civil, and family courts throughout the jurisdiction, has confirmed that anyone entering a court building wearing the devices will have them confiscated at the door and returned only when they leave. The decision follows a comparable restriction introduced by New York's court system weeks earlier, and it lands at a moment when Meta's artificial intelligence (AI) powered eyewear, now sold in more than seven million pairs worldwide, has already been turned away from a wide range of British venues, from pubs and restaurants to theatres and members' clubs, over the same underlying worry: that a camera built into an ordinary looking pair of glasses can record people who have no way of knowing it is happening. Courts occupy a category of their own in this debate. Photography and recording inside a courtroom have been prohibited for the better part of a century, precisely because the integrity of witness testimony, jury deliberation, and the dignity of the proceedings depend on people being able to speak and be observed only by those the law intends. Smart glasses do not just test that rule. They expose a gap in how it was ever meant to be enforced.
What actually changed, and why smartphones were never the real problem
Unauthorised filming inside a courtroom can be prosecuted as contempt of court. Smartphones, despite carrying multiple cameras, have always been let through security on a kind of implicit social contract: everyone understands that the device could record, everyone understands that using it to do so is a punishable offence, and the visible act of holding a phone up to film someone is itself a signal that can be seen and stopped. As per reports citing an HMCTS spokesperson, "There are clear restrictions on taking images or videos within courts and tribunals which is why the use of Meta glasses is prohibited."
Smart glasses dissolve that social contract. A person wearing them looks, to everyone around them, exactly like a person not recording anything at all.
The wider pattern this fits into
England and Wales did not act in isolation. New York's court system introduced a comparable restriction weeks earlier, following an incident during a trial in which a presiding judge warned Meta's own legal team, present in court wearing the company's glasses, that recording proceedings would be treated as contempt. Reports note that the same device has already been shut out of a striking range of everyday venues across Britain, including a major pub chain, high end restaurants, private members' clubs, theatres, music venues, and comic book conventions, with critics giving the product the unflattering nickname "pervert glasses" well before any court got involved.
That pattern matters analytically because it shows this is not really a story about courts distrusting one particular gadget. It is a story about physical spaces everywhere recalibrating what "no recording" can plausibly mean once recording no longer requires a visible object pointed at someone. Meta, for its part, has said the glasses carry a pulsing light-emitting diode (LED) indicator that activates during recording and tamper detection technology intended to stop wearers covering the light, and the company has shipped more than seven million pairs, commanding, according to reports, more than 80 percent of the global AI eyewear market. None of that changes how the device is experienced by the person being recorded, who typically has no reliable way of noticing a small light on the side of someone's face across a room.
There is a genuine innovation story sitting underneath this controversy, and it deserves to be told honestly rather than dismissed. Wearable AI devices that layer translation, navigation, accessibility support, and hands free computing onto ordinary looking eyewear represent one of the more interesting consumer hardware categories to emerge in years, and the underlying engineering, fitting a camera, microphones, speakers, and AI processing into frames that look like Ray-Bans, is a legitimate technical achievement. The court ban is not a verdict on that achievement. It is a verdict on a specific gap between what the hardware makes physically possible and what existing social and legal norms were designed to detect and police. Those are two different conversations, and collapsing them into one tends to produce worse policy on both sides.
Reading the legal architecture underneath the ban
What HMCTS has effectively done is draw a bright line around function rather than form. Smartphones stay in because the courts are relying on deterrence, the near certainty of visible detection and prosecution if someone is caught filming, to manage the risk they pose. Smart glasses are excluded because that deterrence model breaks down when the recording apparatus is invisible by design. Clara Westbrook, a privacy law partner quoted in coverage of the decision, framed the underlying issue as a gap between the technology and the rules meant to govern it, rather than a simple case of institutional overreaction. That framing holds up under scrutiny. Courtroom rules were written for an era in which recording devices announced themselves. Smart glasses were engineered, whatever the stated intent, to do the opposite.
The view from India
Photography and videography are already prohibited inside Indian court premises as a general rule. Filming inside courtrooms has long been treated as a threat to witness candour, judicial dignity, and the orderly conduct of proceedings, and the principle has been reinforced recently. The Supreme Court, in a circular issued in September 2025, imposed a strict ban on photography, videography, and the creation of social media content within its High Security Zone, prohibiting mobile phones, cameras, tripods, and similar equipment except for official use. More recently, in an interim order passed in 2026, the Court went further, restricting the extraction, editing, and re-dissemination of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or digital platforms without prior written permission from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.
Read together, these rules already prohibit the underlying act that smart glasses would enable inside a courtroom, unauthorized capture and circulation of what happens during a hearing. In that sense, Meta glasses are indirectly covered the moment someone wears a pair inside an Indian court, since using them to record would fall squarely within conduct the existing circulars already forbid. What has not happened, and this distinction matters, is any explicit order naming smart glasses as a class of device to be confiscated or barred at entry, the way HMCTS has now done in England and Wales. Indian courts have regulated the act of recording. They have not yet regulated the device that makes covert recording structurally easier to commit without detection.
It remains to be seen whether Indian courts will explicitly name and ban Meta glasses, rather than relying on existing photography rules to cover them indirectly. If that happens, the reasoning will be drawn on constitutional privacy jurisprudence or courtroom security concerns already in play.
Conclusion
What courts owe the people who appear before them is not hostility toward innovation, but a firm defence of the trust a courtroom is built on, that witnesses can speak freely, that proceedings remain what they are meant to be, and that privacy inside those walls is not negotiable. The question worth asking is not what smart glasses can see, but what courts must protect. Innovation earns its place by respecting the spaces it enters, not by outrunning their rules.
References
- The Guardian, "Meta glasses banned from courts in England and Wales," 11 August 2026 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/11/meta-glasses-banned-from-courts-in-england-and-wales
- Engadget, "England and Wales ban Meta Glasses from courtrooms.” https://www.engadget.com/2234606/england-and-wales-ban-meta-glasses-from-courtrooms/
- TechRepublic, "England and Wales Courts Ban Meta Smart Glasses Over Recording Risks." https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-meta-smart-glasses-ban-england-wales-courts/
- BM Magazine, "Meta glasses banned from courts across England and Wales." https://bmmagazine.co.uk/legal/meta-glasses-banned-courts-england-wales/
- IBTimes UK" UK Court Service Bans Meta Smart Glasses After Restaurants, Theatres and Pubs Lead 'Spyware' Privacy Push." https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-courts-ban-meta-smart-glasses-privacy-concerns-18141
- 97 Boing Boing, "English courts ban Meta glasses and other spyware." https://boingboing.net/2026/08/11/english-courts-ban-meta-glasses-and-other-spywear.html
- MediaPost, "Meta Smart Glasses Banned In England, Wales Courtrooms." https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/417180/meta-smart-glasses-banned-in-england-wales-courtr.html
- LiveLaw, "When Seeing Becomes Recording: Invisible Bystander And Limits Of Indian Privacy Law." https://www.livelaw.in/lawschool/articles/invisible-bystander-limits-indian-privacy-law-545517
- PCQuest "B by Lenskart AI Glasses: India's Privacy Laws May Not Be Ready." https://www.pcquest.com/tech-trends/b-by-lenskart-ai-smart-glasses-india-privacy-dpdp-act-12141827
- MediaNama, "Meta tightens AI glasses security as questions over bystander privacy persist." https://www.medianama.com/2026/07/223-meta-tightens-ai-glasses-security-questions-bystander-privacy-persist/
- India Legal, "The State Of Surveillance." https://indialegallive.com/cover-story-articles/il-feature-news/surveillance-jantar-mantar-protests-delhi-police-wearable-recording-devices/
- Feminism In India, "AI Glasses: Is India Ready To Handle The Privacy Implications?" https://feminisminindia.com/2026/07/29/is-india-ready-to-handle-ai-glasses-social-ethical-and-regulatory-governance/
- LiveLaw, "Supreme Court Bans Photography, Videography In Court's High Security Zone." https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-bans-photography-videography-in-courts-high-security-zone-after-bars-concerns-over-reels-selfies-in-court-premises-303682
- LiveLaw, "Supreme Court Bans Uploading and Sharing Of Audio-Video Recordings Of Court Hearings Without Prior Permission." https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/breaking-supreme-court-bans-uploading-sharing-of-audio-video-recordings-of-court-hearings-without-prior-permission-542719
- Deccan Herald, "SC bans clicking photos, making reels in its high security zone." https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/india%2Fdelhi%2Fsc-bans-clicking-photos-making-reels-in-its-high-security-zone-3724668
