#FactCheck- Viral ‘Modi Massage Video’ Claim False, Features Content Creators
Executive Summary
A video showing a woman giving a facial massage to an elderly man with a white beard is going viral on social media, with users claiming that the man is Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Some posts describe it as a “leaked massage video” of the Prime Minister, while others sarcastically link it to the glow on his face. However, research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found that the claim is false. The viral video has no connection to Narendra Modi and is being shared with a misleading narrative.
Claim
An X user named Sonu Singh shared the video with the caption: “Narendra Modi video leaked.”
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. This led us to the same video uploaded on April 12, 2026, on the Instagram and Facebook pages of content creator Pradeep Kaur Dhillon, where it was captioned “Massage time.”
Further checks revealed another similar video posted on March 28, 2026, on the same social media accounts, with the caption: “Stylish, Spa day for him… kyunki self-care sirf ladies layi nahi.”
During the research, we also found that the man seen in the video is Jaspal Singh, Dhillon’s partner, who frequently appears in her social media posts. According to publicly available profile details, the duo resides in New Jersey, USA, and originally belongs to Amritsar, Punjab, India.
Conclusion
The viral claim is false. The video does not show Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It features content creators Pradeep Kaur Dhillon and Jaspal Singh and is being circulated online with a false and misleading claim.
Related Blogs
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.
Introduction
Two of the most influential voices offered strikingly divergent visions of humanity’s technological future in May 2026. On one side of the equation was Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, who spoke of a future in which intelligence would be a "service like electricity or water," available on a metered basis and powered by massive AI infrastructure. On the other side was Leo XIV, the Pope of the Catholic Church, whose encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, presented the Church's most substantial response to AI, presenting the technology not simply as a technical innovation but also as a crucial moral, social, and civilizational challenge.
The differences in their views run much deeper than merely those regarding control and development. At issue is a conflict in understanding intelligence, the purpose of technology, and the dignity of man. While Altman saw intelligence as an abundant economic factor, one that could be produced, distributed, and consumed, Leo XIV emphasized that intelligence is indissociable from the person and that we should be wary of turning human potential into mere merchandise. Their clash of visions can essentially be understood as two different answers to the question: What is a human being, and to whose service should technology be devoted?
Intelligence as Infrastructure
Altman implies that artificial intelligence will follow the trajectory of electricity in industrial society, where the utility became available everywhere as part of the bedrock of society. The ultimate goal is to generate abundance. Cognitive ability will become cheaper and more readily available until it is so inexpensive that it is built into everything.
From the perspective of the business, this is compelling. In many ways modern AI already has infrastructure-like properties. Programmers, businesses, governments, and even individuals are using intelligence as a commodity delivered by a centralized platform and API in a way similar to how previous generations would have used the electricity grid. Altman is essentially predicting that this trend will reach its ultimate form, where intelligence becomes a utility.
There are several assumptions inherent in this utility metaphor; however, utilities are never neutral technologies; they are all forms of governance, ownership, and control. It is not merely the resource being delivered that makes electricity grids, telephone systems, and water infrastructure powerful but the institutions that mediate access to those resources. In Altman's statement "people will buy it from us," there is a political question inherent: Who does the infrastructure of cognition belong to?
Altman himself is also concerned with these issues, often reiterating that this technology could lead to an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth. Yet this concern is a paradox, as truly democratized artificial intelligence does not appear possible without immense capital investment, colossal data centers, proprietary models, and a monopolization of talent. The path to making intelligence universally available appears to lie through unprecedented centralization.
The Vatican's Response: Beyond Technology
Magnifica Humanitas approaches this from a different perspective. It is not, fundamentally, a document on AI policy but on social philosophy, rooted in the Catholic tradition of social teaching. Just as Rerum Novarum, published in 1891, had explored the social implications of industrial capitalism, Leo XIV views AI as a new juncture in humankind's engagement with technology and power.
Two biblical images are recurring throughout the encyclical: Babel and Jerusalem. Babel, the archetype of technical ambition without purpose or moral intent, is an effort to reorder and recenter human society based on conformity, centralization, and the delusion of self-sufficiency. Jerusalem, rebuilt under Nehemiah, is an image of collective reconstruction based on participation and responsibility.
The symbolic weight is critical. Leo XIV is not arguing that technology in itself is inherently dangerous. He is, rather, suggesting that the tools of technology will inherently contain and perpetuate whatever values, incentives, and priorities of the architects and wielders of these technologies. The question is not therefore whether AI should exist, but rather whether it increases human flourishing or enhances systems of control.
This provides what is likely the most significant realization within the encyclical that AI and human intelligence are categories distinct in kind, not in degree. AI can simulate, calculate, and compute, but it can never possess awareness, ethical responsibility, embodiment, or meaningful relationships. As such, decisions impacting human life can no longer be deferred to algorithms in a manner that negates the human good.
The Problem of Power
The most evident clash between Altman's vision and Magnifica Humanitas lies in power dynamics.
The utility model of Altman places the assumption that intelligence can be centrally controlled and widely disseminated. However, the Vatican perceives major political consequences from the concentration of cognitive ability. According to the encyclical, this kind of concentration can lead to major political problems because small groups are given immense power over the economy, public debate, and democracy by possessing the necessary control over data, computation, and the network.
This idea is becoming more prominent in recent research. Experts like Kate Crawford, for instance, have described AI as 'a registry of power' in which systems build up hierarchies of social, political, and economic power. Digital colonialism scholars also show that the control of the network of intelligence under a few transnational corporations may diminish power that would otherwise reside with local authorities and democratic institutions.
The problem, seen from this point of view, does not simply address technology but sovereignty itself. If intelligence is provided as a metered service within private platforms, the access to knowledge, reason, and decision-making tools might rest with entities outside the public sphere, unconcerned with democracy.
The Vatican's solution relies on the principle of subsidiarity; decisions should be taken at the lowest possible levels, respecting the autonomy of individuals, communities, and local institutions. This principle directly contradicts the proposals that see cognitive infrastructure located within a few multinational organizations.
The Hidden Labour Behind AI
A particularly important segment of Magnifica Humanitas addresses the invisible labor of the AI economy.
While discourse on AI frequently conceptualizes it as an intangible or ethereal technology residing within "the cloud," the opposite is in fact the case. AI relies on the unseen labors of data annotators, content moderators, miners harvesting rare earth metals, construction workers creating data centers, and technicians repairing digital infrastructure. In many cases, these workers exist in marginal situations; investigations have revealed poor wages, minimal rights, and psychologically damaging working conditions, especially for content moderators and data annotators in the Global South. Critics contend that the AI of today exists on the backbone of an unacknowledged global workforce that is shielded from consumers of AI technology. In the encyclical, this idea of the AI economy is framed in terms of human dignity, the standard by which all progress, technological or otherwise, must be measured. Progress cannot be defined solely in terms of efficiency and productivity but must be defined by its consequences for workers, society, and human relationships. While the technology of AI may confer tremendous value to a few, it must not do so at the expense of the humanity of others. It gives a key critique of Altman’s utility model that the appeal of abundant intelligence often focuses on products while neglecting the social and material conditions in which it is produced.
A Clash of Anthropologies
The deepest philosophical disagreement of Altman's and Leo XIV's is over anthropology, i.e., who human beings actually are.
Altman’s view presumes an ability to quantify and allocate the human capacity for intelligence. The more intelligent the society, the better the society; and intelligence becomes the prime causal factor whose production must be maximized by the machine.
The Vatican rejects this fundamental principle. According to the argument of Magnifica Humanitas, human value is not located in intelligent productivity or efficiency or economic productivity. Dignity is non-conditional and cannot be reduced to measures of performance. One has dignity not because one can compute, produce, and optimize, but because one is a person.
The implications of this difference are vast. If intelligence is principally treated as an economic asset, then humans will constantly have to deal with being judged as being of greater or lesser use compared to the machine. If dignity is intrinsic, machines must remain instruments of the flourishing of the human, irrespective of machine efficiency. In sum, this is not a debate over machines. It is a debate over whether society is going to be defined according to an ideology of optimization or an ideology of humanity.
Conclusion
The juxtaposition of Sam Altman’s model of utility and Leo XIV’s idea of Magnifica Humanitas defines one of the key intellectual arguments of our times. Altman presents a vision of abundance, efficiency, and humanly impossible intellectual capacity. Leo XIV represents what happens when intelligence is divorced from the demands of ethics, democracy, and human dignity; when the demands they represent only contribute to its ultimate capacity to wound the needs it serves.
It is not whether we will build machines more and more intelligent; it is what politics and values will govern these machines. When intelligence becomes a service, whose interests will govern the machine, who will write the rules, and who will be the direct beneficiaries? When dignity is the source from which man and machine alike emerge, the service must not be judged on what the machine does best but on what it can do for man. The ultimate question is whether we will be able to maintain a view of ourselves that is larger than just our capacity to engineer.
References:
- Atlas of AI, Crawford, Kate. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021.
- Pope Leo XIV. Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. Vatican City: Holy See, 2026.
- Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum. Vatican City: Holy See, 1891.
- Pope John Paul II. Laborem Exercens. Vatican City: Holy See, 1981.
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Dignitas Infinita. Vatican City: Holy See, 2024.
- International Theological Commission. Quo Vadis, Humanitas? Thinking About Christian Anthropology in the Face of Some Scenarios on the Future of Humanity. Vatican City, 2026.
- Nick Lichtenberg. "Sam Altman Admits AI Is Killing the Labor-Capital Balance—and Says Nobody Knows What to Do About It." Fortune, 12 March 2026.
Introduction
The Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw addressed the Press Council of India on the occasion of National Press Day regarding emergent concerns in the digital media and technology landscape. Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw has identified four major challenges facing news media in India, including fake news, algorithmic bias, artificial intelligence, and fair compensation. He emphasized the need for greater accountability and fairness from Big Tech to combat misinformation and protect democracy. Vaishnaw argued that platforms do not verify information posted online, leading to the spread of false and misleading information. He called on online platforms and Big Tech to combat misinformation and protect democracy.
Key Concerns Highlighted by Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw
- Misinformation: Due to India's unique sensitivities, digital platforms should adopt country-specific responsibilities and metrics. The Minister also questioned the safe harbour principle, which shields platforms from liability for user-generated content.
- Algorithmic Biases: The prioritisation of viral content, which is often divisive, by social media algorithms can have serious implications on societal peace.
- Impact of AI on intellectual Property: The training of AI on pre-existing datasets presents the ethical challenge of robbing original creators of their rights to their intellectual property
- Fair compensation: Traditional news media is increasingly facing financial strain since news consumption is shifting rapidly to social media platforms, creating uneven compensation dynamics.
Cyberpeace Insights
- Misinformation: Marked by routine upheavals and moral panics, Indian society is vulnerable to the severe impacts of fake news, including mob violence, political propaganda, health misinformation and more. Inspired by the EU's Digital Services Act, 2022, and other related legislation that addresses hate speech and misinformation, the Indian Minister has called for revisiting the safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. However, any legislation on misinformation must strike a balance between protecting the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, and privacy while safeguarding citizens from its harmful effects.
- Algorithmic Biases: Social media algorithms are designed to boost user engagement since this increases advertisement revenue. This leads to the creation of filter bubbles- exposure to personalized information online and echo chambers interaction with other users with the same opinions that align with their worldview. These phenomena induce radicalization of views, increase intolerance fuel polarization in public discourse, and trigger the spread of more misinformation. Tackling this requires algorithmic design changes such as disincentivizing sensationalism, content labelling, funding fact-checking networks, etc. to improve transparency.
- Impact of AI on Intellectual Property: AI models are trained on data that may contain copyrighted material. It can lead to a loss of revenue for primary content creators, while tech companies owning AI models may financially benefit disproportionately by re-rendering their original works. Large-scale uptake of AI models will significantly impact fields such as advertising, journalism, entertainment, etc by disrupting their market. Managing this requires a push for Ethical AI regulations and the protection of original content creators.
Conclusion: Charting a Balanced Path
The socio-cultural and economic fabric of the Indian subcontinent is not only distinct from the rest of the world but has cross-cutting internal diversities, too. Its digital landscape stands at a crossroads as rapid global technological advancements present increasing opportunities and challenges. In light of growing incidents of misinformation on social media platforms, it is also crucial that regulators consider framing rules that encourage and mandate content verification mechanisms for online platforms, incentivizing them to adopt advanced AI-driven fact-checking tools and other relevant measures. Additionally, establishing public-private partnerships to monitor misinformation trends is crucial to rapidly debunking viral falsehoods. However ethical concerns and user privacy should be taken into consideration while taking such steps. Addressing misinformation requires a collaborative approach that balances platform accountability, technological innovation, and the protection of democratic values.
Sources
- https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/news-media-4-challenges-ashwini-vaishnaw-national-press-day-speech-big-tech-fake-news-algorithm-ai-2634737-2024-11-17
- https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_881
- https://www.legaldive.com/news/digital-services-act-dsa-eu-misinformation-law-propaganda-compliance-facebook-gdpr/691657/
- https://www.fondationdescartes.org/en/2020/07/filter-bubbles-and-echo-chambers/
- https://www.google.com/searchq=News+Media+Bargaining+Code&oq=News+Media+Bargaining+Code&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIICAYQABgWGB4yCAgHEAAYFhgeMggICBAAGBYYHjIICAkQABgWGB7SAQcyMjVqMGo3qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
