#FactCheck- Manhattan Fire Video Falsely Shared as Hezbollah Attack on Israel
Executive Summary
A video showing a building engulfed in flames is going viral on social media, with users claiming it depicts an attack by Hezbollah on Israel’s military headquarters. The clip is being shared with assertions that several Israeli soldiers were killed and many remain trapped inside the burning structure. However, a research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found that the claim is false. The viral video is not from Israel but from New York City in the Manhattan area, where a residential building caught fire.
Claim
A Facebook user, ‘Nazim Khan Tirwadiya’, shared the video on April 15, 2026, claiming that Hezbollah had targeted an Israeli military headquarters, resulting in heavy casualties and ongoing fire.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. This led us to a longer version of the same clip uploaded on the YouTube channel “FDNY Response Videos” on April 12, 2026. The video description identified the location as Manhattan, New York City.
Further keyword searches led us to a report published by ABC7NY on April 12, 2026. According to the report, a massive fire broke out in a six-storey apartment building in Manhattan’s Midtown area around 6 a.m. Firefighters worked extensively to control the blaze, and two firefighters sustained minor injuries. No fatalities were reported.
Conclusion
The viral claim is false. The video does not show an attack on Israel by Hezbollah. Instead, it captures a fire incident in a residential building in Manhattan, New York City. The clip has been shared with a misleading narrative unrelated to the actual event.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A collage of two images circulating on social media is falsely claiming that the street vendor who served jhalmuri to Prime Minister Narendra Modi during an election campaign in Jhargram was actually a personnel from the Special Protection Group (SPG). Research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false and misleading, indicating that it is being shared as part of election-related misinformation. The vendor and the SPG personnel seen in the viral collage are two different individuals.
Claim
An X (formerly Twitter) user, “@Jeetuburdak,” shared the viral collage on April 21, 2026, with the caption: “Another scam! The jhalmuri seller turned out to be an SPG commando.” The post quickly gained traction online.
Fact Check
A close examination of the two images used in the collage shows clear visual differences between the individuals. The person seen in SPG uniform does not match the street vendor who served food to the prime minister. Reverse image searches were conducted using multiple tools to trace the origin of the images. While no verifiable source was found linking the SPG personnel’s image to the vendor, several credible reports and videos featured the actual jhalmuri seller from the campaign event.
- https://x.com/ANI/status/2045859146508177911?s=20
- https://news24online.com/cities/kolkata/who-is-the-man-that-served-jhalmuri-to-pm-modi-know-his-daily-income-and-what-he-talked-about-with-pm/811123/
According to media reports, the prime minister briefly stopped at a roadside stall during the campaign in Jhargram and interacted with the vendor while enjoying jhalmuri. The vendor was later interviewed by multiple outlets, further confirming his identity as a local seller. Additionally, technical facial comparison analysis using online tools also indicated that the two individuals in the viral collage are not the same person.
Conclusion
The claim that the jhalmuri vendor was an SPG commando is false and misleading. The viral collage shows two different individuals, and there is no evidence to support the allegation.
Introduction
The world has been surfing the wave of technological advancements and innovations for the past decade, and it all pins down to one device – our mobile phone. For all mobile users, the primary choices of operating systems are Android and iOS. Android is an OS created by google in 2008 and is supported by most brands like – One+, Mi, OPPO, VIVO, Motorola, and many more and is one of the most used operating systems. iOS is an OS that was developed by Apple and was introduced in their first phone – The iPhone, in 2007. Both OS came into existence when mobile phone penetration was slow globally, and so the scope of expansion and advancements was always in favor of such operating systems.
The Evolution
iOS
Ever since the advent of the iPhone, iOS has seen many changes since 2007. The current version of iOs is iOS 16. However, in the course of creating new iOS and updating the old ones, Apple has come out with various advancements like the App Store, Touch ID & Face ID, Apple Music, Podcasts, Augmented reality, Contact exposure, and many more, which have later become part of features of Android phone as well. Apple is one of the oldest tech and gadget developers in the world, most of the devices manufactured by Apple have received global recognition, and hence Apple enjoys providing services to a huge global user base.
Android
The OS has been famous for using the software version names on the food items like – Pie, Oreo, Nougat, KitKat, Eclairs, etc. From Android 10 onwards, the new versions were demoted by number. The most recent Android OS is Android 13; this OS is known for its practicality and flexibility. In 2012 Android became the most popular operating system for mobile devices, surpassing Apple’s iOS, and as of 2020, about 75 percent of mobile devices run Android.
Android vs. iOS
1. USER INTERFACE
One of the most noticeable differences between Android and iPhone is their user interface. Android devices have a more customizable interface, with options to change the home screen, app icons, and overall theme. The iPhone, on the other hand, has a more uniform interface with less room for customization. Android allows users to customize their home screen by adding widgets and changing the layout of their app icons. This can be useful for people who want quick access to certain functions or information on their home screen. IOS does not have this feature, but it does allow users to organize their app icons into folders for easier navigation.
2. APP SELECTION
Another factor to consider when choosing between Android and iOS is the app selection. Both platforms have a wide range of apps available, but there are some differences to consider. Android has a larger selection of apps overall, including a larger selection of free apps. However, some popular apps, such as certain music streaming apps and games, may be released first or only available on iPhone. iOS also has a more curated app store, meaning that all apps must go through a review process before being accepted for download. This can result in a higher quality of apps overall, but it can also mean that it takes longer for new apps to become available on the platform. iPhone devices tend to have less processing power and RAM. But they are generally more efficient in their use of resources. This can result in longer battery life, but it may also mean that iPhones are slower at handling multiple tasks or running resource-intensive apps.
3. PERFORMANCE
When it comes to performance, both Android and iPhone have their own strengths and weaknesses. Android devices tend to have more processing power and RAM. This can make them faster and more capable of handling multiple tasks simultaneously. However, this can also lead to Android devices having shorter battery life compared to iPhones.
4. SECURITY
Security is an important consideration for any smartphone user, and Android and iPhone have their own measures to protect user data. Android devices are generally seen as being less secure than iPhones due to their open nature. Android allows users to install apps from sources other than the Google Play Store, which can increase the risk of downloading malicious apps. However, Android has made improvements in recent years to address this issue. Including the introduction of Google Play Protect, which scans apps for malware before they are downloaded. On the other hand, iPhone devices have a more closed ecosystem, with all apps required to go through Apple‘s review process before being available for download. This helps reduce the risk of downloading malicious apps, but it can also limit the platform’s flexibility.
Conclusion
The debate about the better OS has been going on for some time now, and it looks like it will get more comprehensive in the times to come, as netizens go deeper into cyberspace, they will get more aware and critical of their uses and demands, which will allow them to opt for the best OS for their convenience. Although the Andriod OS, due to its integration, stands more vulnerable to security threats as compared to iOS, no software is secure in today’s time, what is secure is its use and application hence the netizen and the platforms need to increase their awareness and knowledge to safeguard themselves and the wholesome cyberspace.
.webp)
Introduction
Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU.
Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis
Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta.
Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.
For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.
For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models.
The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.
Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.
Future Impact Outlook
- The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age.
- The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations.
- Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.
Conclusion
Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.
Reference:
- https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106
- https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/
- https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/
- https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/
