#FactCheck- Burning Helicopter Video Not From Iran, Dates Back to 2020 Syria
Executive Summary
A video showing a helicopter engulfed in flames is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that it depicts an American Black Hawk helicopter shot down by Iran during the ongoing Middle East conflict. However, research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false. The viral footage is old and dates back to February 2020, showing a helicopter shot down in Syria, not Iran.
Claim
A Facebook post shared from Nigeria on April 6, 2026, claimed: “The moment an American Black Hawk helicopter was struck by an Iranian heat-seeking missile.” The post, which has been shared over 100 times, includes a 50-second video showing a helicopter exploding mid-air and crashing to the ground.
Fact Check
On April 3, a US F-15E Strike Eagle was reportedly shot down over Iran, marking the first such incident since the start of the ongoing Middle East conflict.
Two Black Hawk helicopter deployed for a search-and-rescue mission for the jet’s crew were also hit by Iranian fire but managed to return to base, despite some crew members being injured.
- http://abcnews.com/Politics/us-fighter-jet-iran-search-rescue-officials/story?id=131685787&utm_source=chatgpt.com
US President Donald Trump had earlier announced the recovery of a missing pilot, describing it as “one of the most daring search and rescue operations in US history.
”
However, the viral video being shared as evidence of the downing of a US aircraft predates these events. Using reverse image search on keyframes from the clip, we found a longer version published by Euronews on February 11, 2020. The Arabic title of the video translates to: “Syrian regime helicopter shot down in Idlib, two pilots killed.” Reports indicate that the incident occurred in Idlib, Syria, in February 2020, where a military helicopter was shot down and caught fire before crashing.
The incident was also covered by other international media outlets, including AFP, which distributed images and videos of the crash.
- https://www.afpforum.com/AFPForum/Search/ViewMedia.aspx?mui=1&hid=5DFA75509C25E3CDC3F24CA3B41C1A9A854C8AA3EB2BC1C64FCC0192F0506138
Conclusion
The viral claim is false. The footage does not show an American helicopter shot down by Iran. Instead, it is an old video from February 2020 depicting a helicopter crash in Syria, which is being shared with a misleading and unrelated narrative.
Related Blogs
.webp)
Introduction
Meta Platforms is experiencing a long-term surge of lawsuits that not only question particular practices, but also the very design and governance of its platforms, across the United States and beyond. This range of privacy breaches to youth mental health damages and antitrust issues are all indicative of a new era of judicial, regulatory, and civil society scrutiny of the duties of big tech firms. The main question is no longer whether harmful content is placed on platforms, but to what extent they are actively creating harm-producing environments.
From Content to Conduct: A Turning Point in Legal Strategy
Over the years, Meta and other sites have depended on legal safeguards like the US Communications Decency Act, Section 230, which protects companies against liability due to user-created content. New ways of testing that protection are now being tried.
Recent incidents have shifted off the blame of particular content and has placed the emphasis on the design of the platform. Courts are becoming more receptive to consider whether the characteristics of infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification, and engagement-based ranking systems are contributing to quantifiable harm.
In March 2026, a California jury declared that Meta and Google were negligent in creating platforms that led to youth addiction and mental health problems. The jury decided that Meta and Google were to pay off a joint sum of 6 million dollars in damages, with 70 percent of the sum being charged on Meta. It is a bellwether case, which means that it is related to about 2,000 other pending cases by parents and school districts. This change is important as it avoids legal barriers. When the liability is linked to the design decisions instead of user-created content, accountability begins to shift.
The Youth Harm Cases: A Big Tobacco Moment
Social media are becoming the subject of increased scrutiny by courts and regulators as products that have quantifiable psychological impacts. The most impactful group of lawsuits against Meta is, perhaps, the one concerning youth mental health.
A day prior to the California verdict, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages due to failure to safeguard young users against child predators on Instagram and Facebook, and found that the company had lied to consumers about the safety of its products and violated state consumer protection laws.
Similar arguments have been presented in other lawsuits filed by attorneys general in over 30 states, and the cases reflect previous regulatory turning points in other industries such as tobacco. The question that courts are not merely asking is whether there is harm or not. They are questioning whether businesses were aware of creating systems that capitalize on behavioral weaknesses. It has been reported in internal documents and accounts of former employees that Meta made a profit by intentionally turning its platforms into addictions to children, with algorithmic functions tailored to drive users into engagement loops, maximising time on platform to the detriment of wellbeing.
Meta has refuted these characterisations, claiming that teen mental health is multifaceted and cannot be blamed on an individual app. The companies have indicated that they will appeal the verdicts.
Privacy and Data Misuse: An Ongoing Fault Line
Platform design is not the only issue that Meta faces in legal matters. Cases centered on privacy have been a recurrent problem in the last ten years, and previous cases have claimed that Facebook monitored users even after they have logged out, scanned personal messages, and utilized personal data in a manner that was beyond user expectations. In more recent times, in April 2026, a class action suit was filed claiming that WhatsApp messages were accessed by Meta employees and third-party contractors, despite the long-standing end-to-end encryption guarantees of the platform.
These instances indicate a structural problem that is consistent. Consent mechanisms and privacy policies tend to be out of date with the reality of data use, and the gap between legal compliance and what users actually know or expect.
Antitrust: A Win, But Not a Clean One
One of the legal fronts was Meta all the way. In November 2025, a judge in the US District Court, James Boasberg, declared that Meta was not a social networking monopoly, finding that the FTC did not demonstrate that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp by the company were against the antitrust law. The decision has since been appealed by the FTC, which continues to argue that "Meta broke our antitrust laws by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, and that American consumers have been harmed by it.
The case also demonstrates a significant drawback of the antitrust law as a form of regulation of tech companies. By the time the trial occurred five years after the lawsuit was initiated, the social media market had evolved such that Tik Tok was a major competitor, undermining the market definition claims of the FTC. The structural issue of whether a few platforms are too powerful in the communication of the masses is not answered, although the legal claim in this instance might have been unsuccessful.
Policy Takeaways: What This Means Going Forward
The accumulating number of lawsuits against Meta provides a number of valuable lessons to policymakers.
- Platform design has become a regulatory topic. Laws should go beyond content regulation and deal with the construction of systems. Engagement maximising features can also increase harm, and this trade-off must be governed explicitly.
- Transparency should be mandatory and not discretionary. Privacy policies and disclosures on platforms are usually too complicated or ambiguous. Regulators might be required to make more transparent and standardised disclosures regarding the use of data and the operation of recommendation systems.
- Section 230 safeguards are under reinterpretation. Courts are becoming open to restrict immunity in cases where the harm is associated with the conduct of the platform and not the content of the user. This would redefine the law of all digital platforms, and not only Meta.
- Cross-border coordination is needed. Meta is an international company, yet the regulatory reaction is still divided. This will require more coordination among jurisdictions to guarantee uniform enforcement and to eliminate regulatory arbitrage.
Conclusion
The lawsuits of Meta are not single cases. They are a more general reconsideration of the regulation of digital platforms and the accountability of those responsible when design decisions have harm at scale. In the wider context of the technology ecosystem, the implications are structural. Courts are starting to question not only what is hosted on them, but how they work and why they are constructed in the manner they are.
The age of minimal responsibility is being supplanted by a more challenging requirement: that platforms should foresee, quantify, and alleviate the harms they produce. The result of these cases will not only decide the future of Meta in terms of legal matters. They will influence the regulations of the digital economy in the years to come.
References
- https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/jury-finds-meta-and-youtube-liable-in-landmark-youth-addiction-case
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-ftc-whatsapp-instagram/
- https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/20/ftc-appeals-metaruling-antitrust-instagram-whatsapp.html
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjw0zgz9zyo
Introduction
Apple launched Passkeys with iOS 16 as a more authentic and secure mechanism. It is safer than passwords, and it is more efficient in comparison to passwords. Apple users using iOS 16 passkeys features should enable two-factor authentication. The passkeys are an unchallenging mechanism than the passwords for the passkeys. The user just has to open the apps and websites, and then the biometric sensor automatically recognises the face and fingerprints. There can be a PIN and pattern used to log instead of passwords. The passkeys add an extra coating of protection to the user’s systems against cyber threats like phishing attacks by SMS and one-time password-based. In a report 9 to 5mac, there is confirmation that 95% of users are using passkeys. Also, with the passkeys, users’ experience will be better, and it is a more security-proof mechanism. The passwords were weak, reused credentials and credentials leaked, and the chances of phishing attacks were real.
What are passkeys?
Passkey is a digital key linked to users’ accounts and websites or applications. Passkeys allow the user to log into any application and website without entering passwords, usernames, or other details. The aim of this new feature is to replace the old long pattern of entering passwords for going through any websites and applications.
The passkeys are developed by Microsoft, Apple, and Google together, and it is also called FIDO Authentication (Fast identity online). It eliminates the need to remember passwords and the need for typing. So, the passkeys work as they replace the password with a unique digital key, which is tied to the account then, the key is stored in the device itself, and it is end-to-end encrypted. The passkeys will always be on the sites on which users specifically created them. the passkeys use the technology of cryptography for more security purposes. And the passkeys guarantee against the phish.
And since the passkeys follow FIDO standards so, this also can be used for third-party nonapple devices as the third-party device generate a QR code that enables the iOS user to scan that to log in. It will recognise the face of the person for authentication and then asks for permission on another device to deny or allow.
How are passkeys more secure than passwords?
The passkeys follow the public key cryptographic protocols that support the security keys, and they work against phishing and other cyber threats. It is more secure than SMS and apps based on one-time passwords. And another type of multi-factor authentication.
Why are passwords insecure?
The users create passwords easily, and it is wondering if they are secure. The very important passwords are short and easy to crack as they generally relate to the user’s personal information or popular words. One password is reused by the user to the different accounts, and then, in this case, hacking one account gives access to all accounts to the hackers. The problem is that passwords have inherent flaws, like they could be easily stolen.
Are passkeys about to become obligatory?
Many websites restrict the type of passwords, as some websites ask for mixtures of numbers and symbols, and many websites ask for two-factor authentication. There is no surety about the obligation of passkeys widespread as it is still a new concept and it will take time, so it is going to be optional for a while.
- There was a case of a Heartland payment system data breach, and Heartland was handling over 100 million monthly credit card transactions for 175,000 retailers at the time of the incident. Visa and MasterCard detected the hack in January 2009 when they notified Heartland of suspicious transactions. And this happened due to a password breach. The corporation paid an estimated $145 million in settlement for illegal payments. Today, data-driven breaches affect millions of people’s personal information.
- GoDaddy reported a security attack in November that affected the accounts of over a million of its WordPress customers. The attacker acquired unauthorised access to GoDaddy’s Managed WordPress hosting environment by hacking into the provisioning system in the company’s legacy Managed WordPress code.
Conclusion
The use of strong and unique passwords is an essential requirement to safeguard information and data from cyberattacks, but still, passwords have its own disadvantages. And by the replacement of passwords, a passkey, a digital key that ensures proper safety and there is security against cyberattacks and cybercrimes through passkey. There are cases above-mentioned that happened due to the password’s weaker security. And in this technology world, there is a need for something for protection and prevention from cybercrimes, and the world dumps passwords and adopts passkeys.
References
- https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/switch-to-passkeys-more-secure-than-passwords-on-ios-16-iphone-14/
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/google-is-ending-passwords-rolls-out-passkeys-for-easy-log-in-how-to-set-it/articleshow/99988444.cms?from=mdr
- https://security.googleblog.com/2023/05/making-authentication-faster-than-ever.html#:~:text=Because%20they%20are%20based%20on,%2Dfactor%20authentication%20(MFA).
Executive Summary
A purported statement attributed to former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is going viral on social media. The post claims that Johnson said about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, “Modi bows under pressure.” It also attributes a comparison between Jawaharlal Nehru and Modi to Johnson, portraying Nehru as more courageous. A research done by the Research Wing of the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false. During the research, the team examined Boris Johnson’s interview at the ET World Leaders Forum 2026, along with media reports related to the interview. The available transcript contains no remark by Johnson saying “Modi bows under pressure” or anything similar. On the contrary, he praised the changes and development taking place in India.
Claim:
A user on Instagram shared the viral claim, writing: “The purported statement by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has intensified the debate over India’s foreign policy and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership. The viral claim describes Nehru’s foreign policy as visionary while accusing the Modi government of bowing under pressure and taking shortcuts. The statement has triggered political reactions on social media.” The link to the post, its archive link, and a screenshot are provided below.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Dcdo_TGy-W0/
Fact Check
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, the Desk examined the available transcript and reports of Boris Johnson’s interview at the ET World Leaders Forum 2026. The Desk found that Johnson also praised India’s current situation. He said that India is going through a “very good period under very strong and stable leadership.” He described India’s progress as “a really wonderful story” and expressed optimism about the country’s future.
During the interview, Johnson discussed several international issues, including India-UK relations, US-UK ties, NATO defence spending, the Iran war and the Ukraine war. The available interview transcript contains no statement from him saying that “Modi bows under pressure” or that Nehru was more courageous than Modi. Johnson also referred to Jawaharlal Nehru in the context of India-Russia relations. He recalled that the late Queen Elizabeth II had once shared an anecdote about a conversation she had with Nehru in the 1950s, during which Nehru reportedly told her that India would always stand by Russia and that some things never change.
Conclusion
Boris Johnson did not make any statement at the ET World Leaders Forum 2026 suggesting that “Modi bows under pressure” or that “Nehru had courage.” On the contrary, he praised India’s progress and spoke positively about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership. Johnson did mention Nehru during the conversation, but his reference was in the context of India-Russia relations and an old conversation between Nehru and the late Queen Elizabeth II. He did not compare Nehru with Modi, nor did he criticise Modi. Therefore, the claim circulating on social media attributing the statement “Nehru had courage, Modi bows under pressure” to Boris Johnson is false.
