#FactCheck - Viral Image of AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi Holding Lord Rama Portrait Proven Fake

Introduction

‍

In January 2026, the Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness came into effect in South Korea, establishing one of the first national AI laws in the world. The bill, enacted by the National Assembly of Korea in December 2024 and implemented from January 22, 2026, aims to strike a balance between the rapid advancement of technology and clear safeguards against risks, as well as transparency, accountability, and responsible AI use. It puts Seoul and the European Union on the frontline of developing legal systems for artificial intelligence and indicates a long-term goal of becoming an AI power on the global stage.

‍

What the AI Basic Act Covers

‍

The AI Basic Act consists of 19 separate AI bills that are merged into a single piece of legislation that covers the lifecycle of AI, including research and development, deployment, and utilisation. It is very wide in its coverage: it refers to any AI system that influences the Korean market or users inside the country, irrespective of the country in which it is created. The law does not apply to national defence and security applications.

The law defines key concepts like artificial intelligence, generative AI, and high-impact AI and establishes the principles of ethical AI, safety, user rights, industry support, and national policy coordination. It also offers a legal foundation for the activities of the government to promote AI innovation without jeopardising the common good.

Fundamentally, the AI Basic Act is designed to establish a culture of trust between businesses and the government/citizens. It does not prohibit AI technologies and does not excessively limit innovation. Instead, it creates the framework of responsible development and economic growth.

‍

Guardrails for Safety and Accountability

‍

One of the defining features of the AI Basic Act is its risk-based approach. Rather than considering all AI systems as similar, it makes a distinction between ordinary and high-impact AI systems, the ones applied in sectors where the wrong or unsafe decision can have a major impact on the safety, rights, or critical infrastructure of the population. Some of them can be seen in healthcare, transportation, financial services, education, and public services.

The high-impact AI operators must integrate risk management plans, human controls, and surveillance systems. In critical decision-making situations, human control should be available at all times; that is, machines can help but not override human control where human safety or other human rights are involved.

The law enables the regulators to perform on-site checks, demand documentation, and conduct compliance investigations. Fines for breaches may go up to 30 million Korean won (approximately 21,000 US dollars). It has a one-year period of transition that is based on guidance but not enforcement, thus allowing companies time to implement compliance measures before imposing fines.

These requirements contribute to enhancing accountability by defining who is accountable for the safety outcomes. The law in South Korea is placed in the ecosystem, as opposed to the methods in which industry self-governance alone is utilised. 

‍

Transparency and Labelling Requirements

‍

The AI Basic Act is based on transparency. The legislation ensures that users are notified before an AI system is operating, particularly with the generation of AI outputs that could be confused with human-created material. As an example, AI-generated text, images, video, or audio that may be difficult to distinguish between reality and fake must have obvious labels or watermarks to allow users to understand the source of the content.

The necessity to label is meant to fight misinformation, misleading activities, and unintended influence on the perception of the people. It is based on international anxiety regarding AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, manipulated media, and misleading online advertisements that have already been addressed separately in policy by South Korea, as well as discussions of data governance.

The transparency is also applied to the process of decision-making in AI systems. Developers and operators should be able to give explicit information about the way in which high-impact systems make their conclusions so that those who are victims of automated decisions can seek meaningful explanations. Although specific explainability criteria are in the process of being developed, the law grounds the principle that AI cannot act behind the scenes in situations where crucial decisions are being made.

‍

Data Privacy and User Protection

‍

The AI governance practice in South Korea is complementary to its current data protection laws, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is broadly regarded as equivalent to major international data protection regulations like the GDPR in regard to personal data laws. The AI Basic Act provides an explanation as to how the data can be gathered, processed, and utilised within AI systems with regard to privacy rights, particularly in areas of high impact.

The law does not supersede the personal data protection policies, but it sets certain conditions on how AI developers must address the data to be utilised in training, testing, and running AIs. Operators will be required to document their data workflows and demonstrate how they guard the privacy of their users, including by transparency and consent mechanisms where necessary. This can assist in ensuring that the information that is utilised in AI functions is regulated by definite norms, and it is more difficult to avoid privacy requirements in the name of innovation.

‍

Accountability and Governance Infrastructure

‍

The AI Basic Act establishes a national policy framework of AI governance. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy Committee, chaired by the President, is at the top and proposes the overall AI policy and aligns it with national objectives. The organisations that would support this are the specialised organisations that deal with safety, risk assessment, and research and the policy centre that would analyse the effects of AI on society and assist in its adoption by the industry.

This institutional structure facilitates strategic guidance as well as operational control. It is through incorporating AI governance in the administration of the people, but not into the market forces, that South Korea wishes to have the ethical and societal concerns become part of the sectors and agencies.

‍

Promoting Innovation and Industrial Support

‍

Although the AI Basic Act does not disregard regulation, it is not a law of restrictions. It also offers legal justification for research and development, human capital, and the growth of the AI industry, with special consideration for startups and small and medium-sized businesses. The legislation promotes AI clusters, long-term funding programmes, and policies to bring foreign talent to the Korean AI ecosystem.

This bidimensional approach of compliance and support is indicative of the broader desire of Korea to become one of the leading AI powers in the world, along with the US and China. The government has pointed out that it will encourage trust by having clear and predictable rules that will attract investment and maintain innovation and not stifle it.

‍

What This Means Globally

‍

The AI Basic Act of South Korea is not only interesting in its contents but also in its timing. It is also among the first thorough AI legislations to come into force in the world, and it beats the gradual regulatory implementations in other parts of the globe, like the European Union. Its system incorporates a principle-based framework, transparency requirements, accountability regulations, and industrial support, which reflects a contrasting model to either pure prescriptive risk regulation or lax self-regulation models elsewhere.

Other critics, such as industry groups and civil society organisations, have suggested that some of the protections may be more explicit, in particular to those who are harmed by AI systems, or to establish high-impact categories. Nonetheless, the framework sets a benchmark upon which most nations will pay close attention when they establish their own AI regimes.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The AI Basic Act puts South Korea at the forefront of national AI regulation, including very well-developed guardrails that enforce transparency, ethical control, accountability, and data protection in addition to fostering innovation. It recognises that AI could lead to economic and social advantages, yet also actual risks, particularly when systems are opaque, autonomous, or widely implemented. South Korea has gone holistically in responsible AI governance by integrating human oversight, labelling requirements, risk management planning, and governance infrastructure into law to be emulated by other countries in the years to come.

Sources

‍

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/29/south-korea-world-first-ai-regulation-laws 
• https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-labour-market-in-korea_af668423/68ab1a5a-en.pdf 
• https://asianintelligence.ai/south-korea 
• https://aibasicact.kr/ 
• https://aibusinessweekly.net/p/south-korea-ai-basic-act-takes-effect-jan22-2026 
• https://asiadaily.org/news/12112/ 

‍

A video circulating widely on social media claims to show former US President Donald Trump issuing a threat to India over its relationship with Russia. In the clip, Trump is allegedly heard warning New Delhi that if it does not cut bilateral ties with Moscow, the United States would “treat India the same way Pakistan did during the May war.”

The reference to the “May war” appears to point to the India-Pakistan military escalation in May 2025, which followed the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s retaliatory strikes under Operation Sindoor targeting terror infrastructure.

However, research done by the Cyber Peace Foundation has found that the video is misleading and digitally manipulated.

The visuals used in the viral clip are genuine and were taken from a press briefing addressed by Donald Trump on January 3, 2026. However, the audio track accompanying the video has been fabricated and falsely superimposed to 

misrepresent his remarks. In the original address, Trump was speaking about a US-led military operation in Caracas that reportedly resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. He made no reference to India, Russia, or any geopolitical warning involving New Delhi.

‍

Claim:

‍

On January 10, an X (formerly Twitter) user, Niki Chiri (@cutehunmee), shared a video claiming it showed Donald Trump threatening India over its ties with Russia.

In the clip, Trump is purportedly heard stating that unless India severed its relationship with Moscow, the United States would respond in a manner similar to Pakistan’s actions during the May conflict.

The post quickly gained traction, with several users amplifying the claim. Iink,archive link and screenshot

• https://x.com/cutehunmee/status/2010021891499798867?s=20 
• https://archive.ph/60tFx 

‍

Research:

‍

To verify the authenticity of the video, the Cyber Peace Foundation conducted a reverse image and video analysis. A Google Lens search led investigators to a longer version of the same footage uploaded on the official YouTube channel of The Wall Street Journal, a prominent US-based news outlet.

A comparison confirmed that both videos shared identical visuals, background elements, and camera angles, establishing that the viral clip was sourced from the same press address.

A review of the full speech, however, showed that Trump did not issue any warning to India, nor did he mention Russia or the May conflict. His remarks were strictly focused on developments in Venezuela.

This confirmed that the viral video had been digitally altered. Here is the link to the original video, along with a screenshot:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOpgLIDrHq0 

‍

‍

In the next phase of the research, the audio track from the viral clip was extracted and analysed using the AI-based voice detection tool Aurigin. The results indicated a high likelihood that the voice in the video was artificially generated, further confirming that the audio did not originate from Trump’s original speech. A screenshot of the result is provided below.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The claim that a video shows Donald Trump threatening India over its ties with Russia is false. The Cyber Peace Foundation found that while the visuals were taken from a real press address, the audio was fabricated and overlaid to falsely attribute threatening statements to Trump. The manipulated video was circulated online to mislead viewers and spread disinformation.

‍

Introduction

In the digital realm of social media, Meta Platforms, the driving force behind Facebook and Instagram, faces intense scrutiny following The Wall Street Journal's investigative report. This exploration delves deeper into critical issues surrounding child safety on these widespread platforms, unravelling algorithmic intricacies, enforcement dilemmas, and the ethical maze surrounding monetisation features. Instances of "parent-managed minor accounts" leveraging Meta's subscription tools to monetise content featuring young individuals have raised eyebrows. While skirting the line of legality, this practice prompts concerns due to its potential appeal to adults and the associated inappropriate interactions. It's a nuanced issue demanding nuanced solutions.

Failed Algorithms 

The very heartbeat of Meta's digital ecosystem, its algorithms, has come under intense scrutiny. These algorithms, designed to curate and deliver content, were found to actively promoting accounts featuring explicit content to users with known pedophilic interests. The revelation sparks a crucial conversation about the ethical responsibilities tied to the algorithms shaping our digital experiences. Striking the right balance between personalised content delivery and safeguarding users is a delicate task.

While algorithms play a pivotal role in tailoring content to users' preferences, Meta needs to reevaluate the algorithms to ensure they don't inadvertently promote inappropriate content. Stricter checks and balances within the algorithmic framework can help prevent the inadvertent amplification of content that may exploit or endanger minors.

Major Enforcement Challenges

Meta's enforcement challenges have come to light as previously banned parent-run accounts resurrect, gaining official verification and accumulating large followings. The struggle to remove associated backup profiles adds layers to concerns about the effectiveness of Meta's enforcement mechanisms. It underscores the need for a robust system capable of swift and thorough actions against policy violators.

To enhance enforcement mechanisms, Meta should invest in advanced content detection tools and employ a dedicated team for consistent monitoring. This proactive approach can mitigate the risks associated with inappropriate content and reinforce a safer online environment for all users.

The financial dynamics of Meta's ecosystem expose concerns about the exploitation of videos that are eligible for cash gifts from followers. The decision to expand the subscription feature before implementing adequate safety measures poses ethical questions. Prioritising financial gains over user safety risks tarnishing the platform's reputation and trustworthiness. A re-evaluation of this strategy is crucial for maintaining a healthy and secure online environment.

To address safety concerns tied to monetisation features, Meta should consider implementing stricter eligibility criteria for content creators. Verifying the legitimacy and appropriateness of content before allowing it to be monetised can act as a preventive measure against the exploitation of the system.

Meta's Response 

In the aftermath of the revelations, Meta's spokesperson, Andy Stone, took centre stage to defend the company's actions. Stone emphasised ongoing efforts to enhance safety measures, asserting Meta's commitment to rectifying the situation. However, critics argue that Meta's response lacks the decisive actions required to align with industry standards observed on other platforms. The debate continues over the delicate balance between user safety and the pursuit of financial gain. A more transparent and accountable approach to addressing these concerns is imperative.

To rebuild trust and credibility, Meta needs to implement concrete and visible changes. This includes transparent communication about the steps taken to address the identified issues, continuous updates on progress, and a commitment to a user-centric approach that prioritises safety over financial interests.

The formation of a task force in June 2023 was a commendable step to tackle child sexualisation on the platform. However, the effectiveness of these efforts remains limited. Persistent challenges in detecting and preventing potential child safety hazards underscore the need for continuous improvement. Legislative scrutiny adds an extra layer of pressure, emphasising the urgency for Meta to enhance its strategies for user protection.

To overcome ongoing challenges, Meta should collaborate with external child safety organisations, experts, and regulators. Open dialogues and partnerships can provide valuable insights and recommendations, fostering a collaborative approach to creating a safer online environment.

Drawing a parallel with competitors such as Patreon and OnlyFans reveals stark differences in child safety practices. While Meta grapples with its challenges, these platforms maintain stringent policies against certain content involving minors. This comparison underscores the need for universal industry standards to safeguard minors effectively. Collaborative efforts within the industry to establish and adhere to such standards can contribute to a safer digital environment for all.

To align with industry standards, Meta should actively participate in cross-industry collaborations and adopt best practices from platforms with successful child safety measures. This collaborative approach ensures a unified effort to protect users across various digital platforms.

Conclusion

Navigating the intricate landscape of child safety concerns on Meta Platforms demands a nuanced and comprehensive approach. The identified algorithmic failures, enforcement challenges, and controversies surrounding monetisation features underscore the urgency for Meta to reassess and fortify its commitment to being a responsible digital space. As the platform faces this critical examination, it has an opportunity to not only rectify the existing issues but to set a precedent for ethical and secure social media engagement.

This comprehensive exploration aims not only to shed light on the existing issues but also to provide a roadmap for Meta Platforms to evolve into a safer and more responsible digital space. The responsibility lies not just in acknowledging shortcomings but in actively working towards solutions that prioritise the well-being of its users.

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/instagram-facebook-prioritised-money-over-child-safety-claims-report/articleshow/107952778.cms
• https://www.adweek.com/blognetwork/meta-staff-found-instagram-tool-enabled-child-exploitation-the-company-pressed-ahead-anyway/107604/
• https://www.tbsnews.net/tech/meta-staff-found-instagram-subscription-tool-facilitated-child-exploitation-yet-company

‍