#FactCheck- Brazil Explosion Video Falsely Linked to Attack on Israeli Defence Minister

Introduction

On 1 July 2026, the United Nations published their first draft of the Development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) report. The scientists who authored this document are 40 individuals who comprise the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence , which was formed by the UN General Assembly in 2025 and chaired by Bengio and Ressa.

The report’s key takeaway message relates to the importance of countries establishing frameworks for the appropriate use of AI technologies as a means of preventing the aggravation of social inequality. UN Secretary-General António Guterres pointed out that without such regulation, society will not be able to enjoy the benefits of these technologies. After all, their explosive development is already beginning to have negative consequences.

This report served as key for the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance, which was held in Geneva on 6^thJuly, 2026.

What Exactly Does the Report Say?

It is not a rulebook, it doesn't create laws. It is more of a survey to get countries on board before they start treaties regarding AI.

This is seen through how much AI has developed from previous technologies, such as electricity taking decades to be common everywhere while the internet took 15 years to get to a billion users, but chatGPT alone got to 100 million users within 2 months. Today, millions of people use AI chatbots, and AI has helped map out 200 million+ protein structures currently helping us get drugs to market much faster.

The report is also cautious. It talks about an "evidence dilemma" , we need evidence to make good AI rules, but by the time it's collected, it might be too late to control the technology. There are 45+ AI frameworks worldwide, but they're disconnected, and some safety checks are done by the same companies that build the AI,  raising doubts about their trustworthiness.

The Big Inequality Problem

This is one of the most eye-opening parts of the report. It says the USA has about 75% of the world's most powerful supercomputers, while China has around 15%,  together, 90% of the world's top computing power. Most AI models are also built in these two countries, meaning they stand to gain the most from AI's growth.

Here's the shocking part: nearly two-thirds of people in high-income countries will benefit from AI tools. But in low-income countries, only about 5% will see any real benefit. Just because AI tools exist doesn't mean everyone gets equal access — especially poorer countries that depend on other nations for AI tools, cloud services, and data.

The Language Problem

Another major issue is language. Most AI tools work well in English and a few major languages. But for other languages, these tools are far less reliable, which becomes dangerous in fields like healthcare.

The report provides shocking examples of how AI translation software has been mistakenly conflating smallpox with syphilis and gonorrhoea with diabetes. It also describes how an attempt by a nurse to reassure a patient speaking Tigrinya that she was about to be given "IV antibiotics", had in fact, been translated by the software into "IV insecticides".

Other Serious Concerns

The report also warns about darker uses of AI, like creating sexual abuse material and fake explicit videos (deepfakes), which mostly harm women and children. AI-generated disinformation is being used to manipulate elections, while cybercriminals use AI for fraud and other crimes.

In addition, AI could have negative impacts on individuals struggling with mental health issues and even driving vulnerable populations to commit suicide. Moreover, the global AI infrastructure is estimated to release huge amounts of CO2 that is contributing to environmental damage.

What the Report Recommends

Because most of the power over AI development will be controlled by major corporations and nations, the report charges that the system is likely to lead to "unjust hierarchical control over critical systems."

To fix this, the suggestions include:

- Independent groups, not AI companies themselves, should test AI systems.

- Countries should cooperate to regulate artificial intelligence technologies instead of imposing a policy on a particular state.

- The states should develop the technical and language expertise to participate in the global negotiations on AI governance.

- However, the global AI governance should address developing countries’ needs to upgrade their infrastructures, such as electricity and data, and strike a balance between sustainability and digitalization.

Conclusion

This UN report is an important first step, giving countries real scientific evidence as they move towards binding international agreements on AI. Its biggest takeaway is this: AI itself is neutral — neither good nor bad on its own. What makes it good or bad for the world are the choices made by governments, firms, and societies in regulating it. Without proper control, AI technologies may well make inequality even worse than it already is. The negotiations to come will be critical in determining the future of the technology.

References

• United Nations News, 'AI explained: Why the world needs to act now', 1 July 2026
• Euronews, 'Window to control AI is closing and it could widen inequality, UN experts warn', 2 July 2026
• Irish Examiner, 'Rapid spread of AI may worsen global inequality, UN warns', 1 July 2026
• Reuters, 'UN report sees enormous potential benefits, big risks in AI', 1 July 2026
• Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, United Nations, July 2026

‍

Overview of the Advisory

‍

On 18 November 2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) published an Advisory that addresses all of the private satellite television channels in India. The advisory is one of the critical institutional interventions to the broadcast of sensitive content regarding recent security incidents concerning the blast at the Red Fort on November 10^th, 2025. This advisory came after the Ministry noticed that some news channels have been broadcasting content related to alleged persons involved in Red Fort blasts, justifying their acts of violence, as well as information/video on explosive material. Broadcasting like this at this critical situation may inadvertently encourage or incite violence, disrupt public order, and pose risks to national security. 

‍

Key Instructions under the Advisory

‍

The advisory provides certain guidelines to the TV channels to ensure strict compliance with the Programming and Advertising Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The television channels are advised to exercise the highest level of discretion and sensitivity possible in reporting on issues involving alleged perpetrators of violence, and especially when reporting on matters involving the justification of acts of violence or providing instructional media on making explosive materials. The fundamental focus is to be very strict in following the Programme and Advertising Code as stipulated in the Cable Television Network Rules. In particular, broadcasters should not make programming that:

• Contain anything obscene, defamatory, deliberately false, or suggestive innuendos and half-truths.
• Likely to encourage or incite violence, contain anything against the maintenance of law and order, or promote an anti-national attitude.
• Contain anything that affects the integrity of the Nation.
• Could aid, abet or promote unlawful activities.

‍

Responsible Reporting Framework

‍

The advisory does not constitute outright censorship but instead a self-regulatory system that depends on the discretion and sensitivity of the TV channels focused on differentiating between broadcasting legitimate news and the content that crosses the threshold from information dissemination to incitement. 

‍

Why This Advisory is Important in a Digital Age

‍

With the modern media systems, there has been an erosion of the line between the journalism of the traditional broadcasting medium and digital virality. The contents of television are no longer limited to the scheduled programs or cable channels of distribution. The contents of a single news piece, especially that of dramatic or contentious nature, can be ripped off, revised and repackaged on social media networks within minutes of airing- often without the context, editorial discretion or timing indicators.

This effect makes sensitive content have a multiplier effect. The short news item about a suspect justifying violence or containing bombs can be viewed by millions on YouTube, WhatsApp, Twitter/X, Facebook, by spreading organically and being amplified by an algorithm. Studies have shown that misinformation and sensational reporting are much faster to circulate compared to factual corrections- a fact that has been noticed in the recent past during conflicts and crisis cases in India and other parts of the world.

‍

Vulnerabilities of Information Ecosystems

• The advisory is created in a definite information setting that is characterised by:
• Rapid Viral Mechanism: Content spreads faster than the process of verification. 
• Algorithmic-driven amplification: Platform mechanism boosts emotionally charged content.
• Coordinated amplification networks: Organised groups are there to make these posts, videos viral, to set a narrative for the general public. 
• Deepfake and synthetic media risks: Original broadcasts can be manipulated and reposted with false attribution. 

‍

Interconnection with Cybersecurity and National Security

‍

Verified or sensationalised reporting of security incidents poses certain weaknesses:

1. Trust Erosion: Trust is broken when the masses observe broadcasters in the air giving unverified claims or emotional accounts as facts. This is even to security agencies, law enforcement and government institutions themselves. The lack of trust towards the official information gives rise to information gaps, which are occupied by rumours, conspiracy theories, and enemy tales.
2. Cognitive Fragmentation: Misinformation develops multiple versions of the truth among the people. The narratives given to citizens vary according to the sources of the media that they listen to or read. This disintegration complicates organising the collective response of the society an actual security threat because the populations can be organised around misguided stories and not the correct data.
3. Radicalisation Pipeline: People who are interested in finding ideological backgrounds to violent action might get exposed to media-created materials that have been carefully distorted to evidence justifications of terrorism as a valid political or religious stand.

‍

How Social Instability Is Exploited in Cyber Operations and Influence Campaigns

‍

Misinformation causes exploitable vulnerability in three phases. 

1. First, conflicting unverified accounts disintegrate the information environment-populations are presented with conflicting versions of events by various media sources. 
2. Second, institutional trust in media and security agencies is shaken by exposure to subsequently rectified false information, resulting in an information vacuum. 
3. Third, in such a distrusted and puzzled setting, the population would be susceptible to organised manipulation by malicious agents.
4. Sensationalised broadcasting gives opponents assets of content, narrative frameworks, and information gaps that they can use to promote destabilisation movements. These mechanisms of exploitation are directly opposed by responsible broadcasting.

‍

Media Literacy and Audience Responsibility

‍

Structural Information Vulnerabilities-

A major part of the Indian population is structurally disadvantaged in information access:

• Language barriers: Infrastructure in the field of fact-checking is still highly centralised in English and Hindi, as vernacular-language misinformation goes viral in Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Punjabi, and others.

• Digital literacy gaps: It is estimated that there are about 40 million people in India who have been trained on digital literacy, but more than 900 million Indians access digital content with different degrees of ability to critically evaluate the content.
• Divides between rural and urban people: Rural citizens and less affluent people experience more difficulty with access to verification tools and media literacy resources.
• Algorithmic capture: social media works to maximise engagement over accuracy, and actively encourages content that is emotionally inflammatory or divisive to its users, according to their history of engagement.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The advisory of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is an acknowledgment of the fact that media accountability is a part of state security in the information era. It states the principles of responsible reporting without interference in editorial autonomy, a balance that various stakeholders should uphold. Implementation of the advisory needs to be done in concert with broadcasters, platforms, civil society, government and educational institutions. Information integrity cannot be handled by just a single player. Without media literacy resources, citizens are unable to be responsible in their evaluation of information. Without open and fast communication with the media stakeholders, government agencies are unable to combat misinformation. 

The recommendations include collaborative governance, i.e., institutional forms in which media self-regulation, technological protection, user empowerment, and policy frameworks collaborate and do not compete. The successful deployment of measures will decide whether India can continue to have open and free media without compromising on information integrity that is sufficient to provide national security, democratic governance and social stability during the period of high-speed information flow, algorithmic amplification, and information warfare actions.

‍

References

‍

https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-11/advisory-18.11.2025.pdf

‍

Introduction

Personalised advertisements deploy a mechanism that derives from the collection of the user’s data. Although it allows for a more tailored user experience, one cannot ignore the method through which this is achieved. Recently, as per a report by the Indian Express on 13th November 2024, Meta has come up with a less personalised ad option on Facebook and Instagram for its users in the European Union (EU). This was done due to the incompatibility of their previous ad offer with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). 

Relevant Legislation

In October 2023, Meta came up with a “Pay or Consent” option for their users in the EU. It gave the users two options: either to pay a monthly subscription fee to avail of the ad-free usage variant of Facebook and Instagram, or to give consent to see personalised ads based on the user’s data. This consent model was introduced in their attempts to comply with the EU’s DMA. However, this was found to be incompatible with the said mandate, according to the EU regulators, as they believed that the users should not only have the option to consent to ads but also have access to less personalised but equivalent alternatives. It is this decision that pushed Meta to come up with less personalised ad options for users in the EU. The less-personalised ad option claims to rely on limited data and show ads that are only based on the context of what is being viewed i.e. during a Facebook or Instagram session requiring a minimum set of data points such as location, age, gender, and the user’s engagement with the ads. However, choosing this option also allows for such ads to be less skippable. 

The EU’s Digital Markets Act came into force on November 1, 2022. The purpose was to make the digital marketing sector fairer and in doing so, identify what they consider to be “Gatekeepers” (core platform services such as messenger services, search engines, and app stores) and a list of do’s and don’ts for them. One of them, applicable to the case mentioned above, is the effective consent required by the user in case the gatekeeper decides to target advertisements enabled by tracking the users' activity outside the gatekeeper's core platform services. 

The Indian Context

Although no such issues have been raised in India yet, it is imperative to know that in the Indian context, the DPDP (Digital Personal Data Protection) Act 2023 governs personal data regulation. This includes rules for Data Fiduciaries (those who, alone or in partnership with others, determine the means and purpose of processing personal data), the Data Principal (those who give data), Consent Managers, and even rules regarding processing data of children. 

CyberPeace Recommendations:

At the level of the user, one can take steps to ensure limited collection of personal data by following the mentioned steps: 

• Review Privacy Settings- Reviewing Privacy settings for one’s online accounts and devices is a healthy practice to avoid giving unnecessary information to third-party applications.
• Private Browsing- Browsing through private mode or incognito is encouraged, as it prevents websites from tracking your activity and personal data.
• Using Ad-blockers- Certain websites have a user option to block ads when the user first visits their page. Availing of this prevents spam advertisements from the respective websites.
• Using VPN- Using Virtual Private Networks enables users to hide their IP address and their data to be encrypted, preventing third-party actors from tracking the users' online activities
• Other steps include clearing cookies and cache data and using the location-sharing feature with care.

Conclusion

Meta’s compliance with the EU’s DMA signals that social media platforms cannot circumnavigate their way around rules. Balancing the services provided while respecting user privacy is of the utmost importance. The EU has set precedence for a system that respects this and can be used as an example to help set guidelines for how other countries can continue to deal with similar issues and set standards accordingly.

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/meta-less-personalised-ads-eu-regulatory-demands-9667266/
• https://rainmaker.co.in/blog/view/the-price-of-personalization-how-targeted-advertising-breaches-data-privacy-and-challenges-the-gdprs-shield
• https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/magazine-features/fines-data-protection-violations/
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2023/09/01/the-landscape-of-personalized-advertising-efficiency-versus-privacy/
• https://iapp.org/news/a/pay-or-consent-personalized-ads-the-rules-and-whats-next
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/how-to/how-to-safeguard-privacy-in-the-era-of-personalised-ads/articleshow/102748711.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/facebook-instagram-users-in-europe-can-opt-for-less-personalised-ads-124111201558_1.html
• https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en

‍