#FactCheck - Viral Videos of Mutated Animals Debunked as AI-Generated

In an era defined by perpetual technological advancement, the hitherto uncharted territories of the human experience are progressively being illuminated by the luminous glow of innovation. The construct of privacy, once a straightforward concept involving personal secrets and solitude, has evolved into a complex web of data protection, consent, and digital rights. This notion of privacy, which often feels as though it elusively ebbs and flows like the ghost of a bygone epoch, is now confronted with a novel intruder – neurotechnology – which promises to redefine the very essence of individual sanctity.

Why Neuro Rights

At the forefront of this existential conversation lie ventures like Elon Musk's Neuralink. This company, which finds itself at the confluence of fantastical dreams and tangible reality, teases a future where the contents of our thoughts could be rendered as accessible as the words we speak. An existence where machines not only decipher our mental whispers but hold the potential to echo back, reshaping our cognitive landscapes. This startling innovation sets the stage for the emergence of 'neurorights' – a paradigm aimed at erecting a metaphorical firewall around the synapses and neurons that compose our innermost selves.

At institutions such as the University of California, Berkeley, researchers, under the aegis of cognitive scientists like Jack Gallant, are already drawing the map of once-inaccessible territories within the mind. Gallant's landmark study, which involved decoding the brain activity of volunteers as they absorbed visual stimuli, opened Pandora's box regarding the implications of mind-reading. The paper published a decade ago, was an inchoate step toward understanding the narrative woven within the cerebral cortex. Although his work yielded only a rough sketch of the observed video content, it heralded an era where thought could be translated into observable media.

The Growth

This rapid acceleration of neuro-technological prowess has not gone unnoticed on the sociopolitical stage. In a pioneering spirit reminiscent of the robust legislative eagerness of early democracies, Chile boldly stepped into the global spotlight in 2021 by legislating neurorights. The Chilean senate's decision to constitutionalize these rights sent ripples the world over, signalling an acknowledgement that the evolution of brain-computer interfaces was advancing at a daunting pace. The initiative was spearheaded by visionaries like Guido Girardi, a former senator whose legislative foresight drew clear parallels between the disruptive advent of social media and the potential upheaval posed by emergent neurotechnology.

Pursuit of Regulation

Yet the pursuit of regulation in such an embryonic field is riddled with intellectual quandaries and ethical mazes. Advocates like Allan McCay articulate the delicate tightrope that policy-makers must traverse. The perils of premature regulation are as formidable as the risks of a delayed response – the former potentially stifling innovation, the latter risking a landscape where technological advances could outpace societal control, engendering a future fraught with unforeseen backlashes. 

Such is the dichotomy embodied in the story of Ian Burkhart, whose life was irrevocably altered by the intervention of neurotechnology. Burkhart's experience, transitioning from quadriplegia to digital dexterity through sheer force of thought, epitomizes the utopic potential of neuronal interfaces. Yet, McCay issues a solemn reminder that with great power comes great potential for misuse, highlighting contentious ethical issues such as the potential for the criminal justice system to over extend its reach into the neural recesses of the human psyche.

Firmly ensconced within this brave new world, the quest for prudence is of paramount importance. McCay advocates for a dyadic approach, where privacy is vehemently protected and the workings of technology proffered with crystal-clear transparency. The clandestine machinations of AI and the danger of algorithmic bias necessitate a vigorous, ethical architecture to govern this new frontier. 

As legal frameworks around the globe wrestle with the implications of neurotechnology, countries like India, with their burgeoning jurisprudence regarding privacy, offer a vantage point into the potential shape of forthcoming legislation. Jurists and technology lawyers, including Jaideep Reddy, acknowledge ongoing protections yet underscore the imperativeness of continued discourse to gauge the adequacy of current laws in this nascent arena.

Conclusion 

The dialogue surrounding neurorights emerges, not merely as another thread in our social fabric, but as a tapestry unto itself – intricately woven with the threads of autonomy, liberty, and privacy. As we hover at the edge of tomorrow, these conversations crystallize into an imperative collective undertaking, promising to define the sanctity of cognitive liberty. The issue at hand is nothing less than a societal reckoning with the final frontier – the safeguarding of the privacy of our thoughts.

References:

https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/neurorights-neurotechnology-brain-implant-9030260/

‍

Executive Summary 

Following the defeat of US President Donald Trump’s Republican Party in the American midterm elections, a video purportedly showing Trump vandalising his office is going viral on social media. Some users are sharing the video, claiming that Trump resorted to vandalism in his office after his party lost the midterm elections. CyberPeace Research found the video to be AI-generated. However, users are sharing it as genuine.

Claim:

Facebook user ‘Lalan Prasad’ shared the video in a post dated November 5, 2026 (archived link), with the caption: “Does this man deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? After the election results were announced, he allegedly vandalised his office at around 2:30. Trump’s anger is at its peak.”

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1148698857556238

‍

Fact Check

To verify the viral claim, we searched Google using relevant keywords. However, we did not find any credible media reports supporting the claim. In the next step of our research, we found a post by Instagram user ‘eman_russ’, who shared the video on November 4, 2026. The post is labelled ‘AI Generated’, and its caption explicitly states that the video was created using ‘higgsfield.ai’.

‍

‍

We also scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool SynthID. According to the results, the video is AI-generated.

‍

‍

In the next step of our research, we scanned the video using DetectVideo AI. According to the results, the viral video is 96 per cent AI-generated.

‍

Conclusion

Our research found that the viral video is AI-generated and does not show US President Donald Trump vandalising his office following his party’s defeat in the midterm elections. The video was originally shared on Instagram with an ‘AI Generated’ label, and its creator explicitly mentioned that it was made using ‘higgsfield.ai’. Further analysis using AI detection tools also indicated that the video was artificially generated. Despite this, social media users are sharing it as a genuine incident, falsely linking it to the midterm election results.

‍

Introduction
‍

In June 2026, the Government of India temporarily restricted access to Telegram amid concerns that the platform had been used to facilitate examination related malpractice, including the alleged circulation of leaked question papers during the NEET UG re examination. The move reignited a familiar debate about the responsibility of digital platforms for unlawful activities carried out through them.

Critics of such restrictions raise a fundamental question: if a traffic accident occurs on a road, do we shut down the road? If theft takes place inside a shopping mall, do we close the entire mall? By the same logic, is it reasonable to block a communication platform because some individuals misuse it? These questions lie at the heart of a broader conflict between state interests in maintaining public order and the protection of digital rights, privacy, and freedom of communication in an increasingly interconnected world.

The controversy surrounding Telegram therefore extends beyond a single examination or messaging application. It raises a deeper and more pressing question: who should bear responsibility for illegal acts committed through encrypted digital platforms, and where should the law draw the line between effective enforcement and the preservation of fundamental digital freedoms?

Beyond mere communication for millions of students in India, Telegram is a classroom in the digital sense, an archive for their notes, practice papers, lecture recordings, and community groups that hundreds of millions of candidates refer to every single day. Therefore, why on a routine day in June 2026 did the messaging app top every other channel? Temporary internet restriction on the platform had become necessary to stop examination-related malpractice like leakage of question papers and was temporarily suspended, with reports suggesting that this move by the government was on the occasion of the NEET-UG re-examination.

This ban once again brings up a bigger question that cannot be contained within one particular examination. When has it become okay to hold a communication platform responsible and accountable for illegal acts committed over it? Or are the perpetrators solely to blame, and the service can be prohibited? Ultimately, where is the line drawn between public interest, law enforcement, and digital rights and privacy? 

‍

End-to-End Encryption: Architecture and Benefits
‍

At the heart of these discussions of Telegram and other apps lies a technology referred to as "end-to-end encryption" or "E2EE." Quite literally, it means a message is locked with cryptography on the sender's device and can only be unlocked by the intended recipient. Not even the tech platform running the communication app can decipher it for everyone else; it just looks like random gibberish.

‍

The Process
‍

This kind of modern communication relies on public key cryptography. Each person has a public key they can share with anyone and a private key that stays only on their devices. When they send you a message, it is scrambled with crypto that can be unlocked by only your private key. WhatsApp and Signal, for example, use the Signal Protocol, which features "perfect forward secrecy" and is designed to protect communications from ever being unlocked even if one key is compromised. Telegram's approach is a bit unique. By default, Telegram messages aren't encrypted with end-to-end crypto; this only comes via an optional feature called "Secret Chats," a key difference in the regulatory debate.

‍

The Dark Side: Crime, Misuse, and the Moderation Dilemma

‍

The very features that make end-to-end messaging popular among everyday people are privacy, speed, anonymity, and mass reach which also make end-to-end messaging popular among criminals. That, unfortunately, is the catch for policymakers globally: The technology designed to protect innocent users is also the technology that facilitates criminal activity.

‍

3.1 Criminal Abuse

Telegram, in particular, has frequently come under fire for its role in hosting a spectrum of criminal activities, most notably in the recent controversy in India regarding NEET-UG 2026 examination papers where channels allegedly advertised leaked question papers for enormous sums, convincing desperate candidates. In these instances, messages could be altered or deleted using Telegram’s message editing feature, fabricating evidence of prior leaks. However, this extends to illicit marketplaces, drug trafficking, financial fraud, money laundering, and distributing other prohibited content. Telegram's usage in disseminating extremist propaganda and aiding criminal organizations is also frequently cited, leading to bans or restrictions in countries ranging from Brazil to Nepal to Somalia to Vietnam.

‍

3.2 The Moderation Dilemma

But the difficulty is not just with misuse; it’s also about effective moderation. Moderation, however, requires content transparency. Strong encryption is built to obscure just that. Many end-to-end messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp emphasize that even if they wanted to, they would have been able to decipher the content of a user’s message due to their architecture. Telegram has been in scrutiny for years due to its limited cooperation with law enforcement agencies because its default chats are not completely end-to-end encrypted, though there has been an attempt by Pavel Durov, the platform’s founder, to increase cooperation following his 2024 arrest in France.

This gives policymakers the following challenge: How can governments require increased access to fight crime without forcing tech companies to weaken security for everyone? As cryptographers point out, a specific "backdoor" intended to allow access to law enforcement officials can be easily exploited by hackers, foreign governments, and any other actor with nefarious intent.

‍

Comparison of Regulatory Approaches Worldwide

‍

4.1 Authoritarian Countries' Responses

‍

China, for instance, has had the app blocked as part of its strategy to control access to the internet since 2015, and Iran did so in 2018 when the app was used to help organize protests against the government. An infamous Russian bid to block Telegram in 2018 turned into a cautionary story. Trying to censor the service disrupted the IPs of millions of computers, including significant services like those run by Amazon and Google. The move was met by a surge of users turning to VPNs to get access. It’s an expensive, disruptive, and incomplete form of censorship.

‍

4.2 Democratic Countries' Approaches

‍

Democratic jurisdictions generally prefer targeted interventions. Telegram was suspended in Brazil in 2022 and 2023, though again, only in response to a judge’s order in relation to particular investigations, and was lifted when it came into compliance. The EU’s approach has been to build on an established approach of regulation by use of a broader legislative framework, including the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, aimed at platform liability rather than outlawing encryption outright.

 Meanwhile, the proposed scanning of encrypted communications has run into strong judicial headwinds, with the European courts stressing the danger of backdoors to privacy.

‍

4.3 The United Kingdom Approach

‍

The UK offers a middle way. With its Investigatory Powers Act, the government can oblige tech companies to collaborate in legitimate investigations. But this came to a head earlier this year with the case of Apple and the government's attempts to force it to unlock encrypted iCloud backups. Apple not only refused to reduce its encryption but also decided instead to disable some of its features for British users. This has created a problem for democracies across the world: how to balance access for investigators against the need to maintain the security that makes our systems safer.

‍

Judicial and Legislative Perspectives: India and Beyond

‍

In the Indian context, to have a perspective about the legal frameworks concerning content moderation, let’s explore some of the foundational decisions from the Supreme Court. Three decisions have laid the building block for digital rights laws: the first being Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, was upheld, but only by laying rigorous conditions on the review process and chance of challenging the said decision. Another important decision in this sphere is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which stated that the right to privacy is fundamental in nature under Article 21 of the Constitution and stipulated the constitutional requirements of legality, legitimacy, and proportionality against the state’s interventions in fundamental rights. The most recent important case law to consider, in this context, would be Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) which set certain limitations, such as any internet shut-downs or orders have to be temporary, proportional, and have scope for appeal. Further, the Supreme Court demanded transparency around any and all orders of blocking.

These principles of proportionality and legal limitations are highly pertinent to the Telegram issue, especially since Section 69A confers powers to block information in case of concerns about public order, national security, etc., but activists often cite this power to target specific content rather than entire platforms like Telegram. The ban on Telegram in June 2026 and disabling of message editing will force authorities to justify not only their statutory authority but also the need for proportionate means.

These aspects are amplified by IT Rules, 2021, which mandate that some instant messaging platforms may require identification of the ‘first originator’ of messages, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to protect digital personal data by ensuring it does not undermine national security exceptions to this end. 

Moreover, the use of encryption to ensure secure and private communications is becoming an important point of legal discourse globally. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights in Podchasov v. Russia (2024) held that mandating decryption on devices as a tool of investigative power constituted a disproportionate interference with an individual's right to privacy implying that while states may indeed have authority to regulate communication and digital services, any such measures limiting the scope of encryption will have to meet strict requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality to be legally justifiable.

‍

Constitutional Validity of the Ban

‍

The government's case for a constitutional ban on Telegram rests upon its ability to satisfy the proportionality framework established by Puttaswamy and Anuradha Bhasin.

1. Legitimate aim:  The state's strong suit. This is the government's best argument. Protection of the integrity of NEET-UG, a high-stakes test with close to 2.4 million students, can indeed be a legitimate state objective. Given that there is evidence of channels that allegedly were involved in selling leaked question papers, the action is presumably justifiable under section 69A for preventing the incitement or occurrence of public disorder or preventing cognizable offenses.
2. Necessity: The National Testing Agency (NTA) itself admitted that localized removal of suspicious accounts on Telegram had already mitigated the risks, while Telegram insisted that it had independently taken down numerous channels. The fact that the block affected more than 150 million users in India, where the medium is widely used for personal communication and is also utilized on other platforms like WhatsApp, Discord, and Instagram to a similar or higher extent, raises the responsibility to justify a strict platform-wide ban. Moreover, there is a significant legal question regarding the state’s authority under section 69A to direct Telegram to disable its message-editing capability.
3. Proportionality and process: The block, even though it was temporary and intended to ensure fairness in the examination system, severely undermined legitimate uses of the platform by students who used it to share educational materials and organize study groups. Moreover, the opaqueness around the section 69A order is itself hard to reconcile with the transparency requirements set out in Anuradha Bhasin. 

Thus, while the objectives of preventing exam fraud may be legitimate, the necessity and proportionality of single platform-wide bans remain highly suspect under Indian constitutional law.

‍

Policy Recommendations and the Path Forward

‍

The Telegram controversy points to the need for a better balancing act in platform governance in India. Firstly, instead of blanket platform shutdowns, action should target specific channels, bots, or URLs, as may be the case. Secondly, any attempt to dictate changes to features, such as disabling message editing, should be based on specific statutory provisions, not an expansive reading of Section 69A. Furthermore, there is a dire need for increased transparency; blocking orders must state the justification for the order, what is being blocked, and for how long, as far as possible. In the long run, stricter cross-border cooperation via streamlined MLATs, or through the appointment of local legal representatives by foreign platforms, would facilitate easier enforcement. Ultimately, all major blocking decisions must be accompanied by proportionality assessments. Lastly, India must resist pressure to provide access to encryption backdoors; while this might ease investigative burdens, doing so would severely jeopardise the cybersecurity of India, its businesses, and citizens.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Telegram ban is an example of the tricky equilibrium between protection of public interest and protection of digital liberties in our hyper-connected world. While the intent to counter exam fraud is justifiable, a blanket ban on any platform has much broader implications on questions of necessity, proportionality and transparency. India has a well-developed constitutional and legal framework to deal with this issue already, and the challenge will be to see if those powers are used appropriately.

‍

References

‍

Cases:

‍

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench)
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 — Supreme Court of India
• Podchasov v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 33696/19, February 2024)
• Apple Inc. v. United States (In re Search of an Apple iPhone, C.D. Cal. 2016)
• Telegram Messenger Inc. v. Union of India & Anr., Delhi High Court (June 2026) — Sub judice

‍

Legislation & Rules:

‍

• Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) — Sections 69A, 79
• IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009
• IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India) & DPDP Rules, 2025
• EU Digital Services Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/2065)
• EU Digital Markets Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/1925)
• EU Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) Proposal — In Trilogue, June 2026
• UK Investigatory Powers Act, 2016

‍

Policy Sources:

‍

• Internet Freedom Foundation, Statement on Telegram Block, 16 June 2026
•  European Commission, ProtectEU Security Strategy, June 2025
•  MeitY Section 69A Blocking Order re: Telegram (June 2026)
•  NTA Press Release on NEET-UG 2026 Re-Examination, 16 June 2026

‍