#FactCheck- Viral Photo Claiming PM Modi Met ‘Cockroach Janata Party’ Founder Abhijeet Dipke Is AI-Generated

Introduction

Microchips are the invisible foundation of the modern economy. From consumer electronics and automotive manufacturing to military defense and artificial intelligence, virtually every critical industry relies on semiconductor supply chains. Yet, despite their ubiquity, chip manufacturing remains one of the most complex and concentrated supply networks on the planet. This explainer breaks down the global semiconductor ecosystem: how chips are produced, where the primary vulnerabilities lie, and why control over silicon has become the defining geopolitical battleground of our time. 

A Chip Crosses More Borders Than Most People Do

Chipmaking is a relay race across continents. Engineers design the layout, then factories carve it onto silicon wafers so precisely that a particle of dust can ruin a batch. A single chip may be designed in the United States, made in Taiwan on Dutch equipment, assembled in Malaysia or Vietnam, and soldered in China or India. Thus, the entire link in the chain is vulnerable, and the failure of one weak element will lead to the stoppage of the entire chain. The forecast for the industry in 2021 was complicated by pandemic-related constraints and record demand, resulting in the disruption of automakers’ production costs by $210 billion and the loss of 7.7 million vehicles, according to AlixPartners

The Geography of Silicon Power

Manufacturing clusters in East Asia: Taiwan is focused on advanced manufacturing, South Korea – on memory (Samsung, SK Hynix), Japan – on chemicals and equipment. South Korea is ready to double its DRAM production in 2026 by increasing it 5 times than 2025. China is seeking to reduce its dependence on imports, but it is not as far along in advanced manufacturing as many analysts believe. The US holds much of the underlying IP but manufactures a smaller share of it — TSMC's Arizona campus shows the shift, growing from $12 billion to over $165 billion, with a further $100 billion expansion announced in mid-2026 that could push the total to $265 billion, potentially the largest foreign direct investment in US history.

Foundry, Fabless, or Both?

The semiconductor industry runs on  three primary business models:

• Fabless (Design-Only): Companies like NVIDIA, AMD, and Qualcomm focus exclusively on architecture, intellectual property, and circuit design. They outsource all physical fabrication to specialised manufacturers, which helps them stay agile.
• Pure-Play Foundries (Manufacturing-Only): Dedicated contract manufacturers, most prominently TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company), take designs from fabless firms and produce the physical wafers. They invest billions annually in advanced lithography and don’t compete in product design.
• Integrated Device Manufacturers (IDMs): Legacy companies like Intel and Samsung manage the entire lifecycle, from designing and fabricating to packaging their own chips. However, maintaining both cutting-edge design and manufacturing capabilities has become more and more difficult, leading IDMs to adopt hybrid foundry strategies.

Advanced Packaging: The New Frontier 

For decades, the primary driver of semiconductor performance was Moore’s Law: shrinking transistor dimensions on a single silicon die. But physical limitations are making traditional scaling prohibitively expensive, making the industry shift its focus to Advanced Packaging.  Techniques like 2.5D and 3D stacking combine multiple chips with short, dense wiring, boosting speed and efficiency without shrinking transistors, which are crucial for AI hardware. TSMC's CoWoS platform is now considered as critical as fabrication itself, with demand regularly outpacing supply. Because packaging needs far less capital than a leading-edge fab, more countries are racing to build local packaging capacity.

Who Actually Runs This Industry

A few companies dominate the market. TSMC is the biggest contract manufacturer of chips, while Samsung is both a designer and a manufacturer. Intel is re-establishing its foundry business, while Nvidia has taken over the market for AI and graphics processing units. Qualcomm and MediaTek dominate the market for mobile phone chips, and AMD competes in the personal computer market. Finally, there is one tiny Dutch company, ASML, which has a monopoly on the most advanced lithography tools, called extreme ultraviolet, or EUV. Each such machine costs more than $15 billion, so there is no real competition for now. Broadcom, Micron, and SK Hynix are other important players, as they are major suppliers of memory chips for computers and cars, as well as AI chips.

Where Things Are Headed

AI remains central, pushing advanced packaging and high-bandwidth memory to the top of every strategy; SEMI projects 300mm memory equipment investment will exceed $50 billion in 2026. Trade policy now matters as much as technology. In January 2026, the U.S. imposed a 25 per cent tariff on advanced semiconductors and began applying case-by-case reviews to previously near-automatic rejections of requests for Chinese firms to buy state-of-the-art chips for use in artificial intelligence computers. The U.S. is incentivizing Taiwanese manufacturers to make semiconductors in America while South Korea, Japan, and the European Union have made efforts to encourage investment in their own display technology. According to an article from Bloomberg published in July 2026, new fabrication plants face a danger of being delayed for years due to a shortage of skilled workers, resulting in billions of dollars wasted on investments.

Conclusion

Ultimately, semiconductors represent the ultimate convergence of technology, commerce, and geopolitics. A single speck of silicon now carries the weight of global GDP, national security, and the future of artificial intelligence. As trade barriers rise and supply chains re-align, control over these micro-foundations will decide which economies lead and which get left behind. The next decade will be won by mastering advanced packaging, talent management, and forging strategic alliances. 

References

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). "Worldwide Chip Sales in May More Than Double Compared to Last Year." July 2026

Bloomberg. "US Semiconductor Labor Shortage Threatens Billions in Chip Factory Investments." July 2026

AlixPartners. "Semiconductor Shortages to Cost the Auto Industry Billions." September 2021

TSMC. "TSMC Arizona." Company overview 

World Semiconductor Trade Statistics (WSTS). "Global Semiconductor Market Surges Beyond $1.5T 2026."

Morgan Lewis. "BIS Revises Export Review Policy for Advanced AI Chips Destined for China and Macau." January 2026

Gibson Dunn. "The Trump Administration's New Tariffs on and Export Licensing Requirements for Advanced Semiconductors." January 2026

Congressional Research Service. "Legal Authority for Export Controls and Tariffs on Semiconductor Chips Sold to China." March 2026

‍

Introduction

DDoS – Distributed Denial of Service Attack is one of the cyber-attacks which has been evolving at the fastest pace,  the new technologies have created a blanket of vulnerability for the victim which allows the cyber criminals to stay under the radar and keep launching small scale high intensity cyber attacks. A distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack is a malicious attempt to disrupt the normal traffic of a targeted server, service, or network by overwhelming the target or its surrounding infrastructure with a flood of Internet traffic. DDoS attacks achieve effectiveness by utilizing multiple compromised computer systems as sources of attack traffic. Exploited machines can include computers and other networked resources such as IoT devices. From a high level, a DDoS attack is like an unexpected traffic jam clogging up the highway, preventing regular traffic from arriving at its destination.

Op Power Off

In a recent Operation by Law enforcement agencies known as Op Power Off, LEAs from United Kingdom, United States of America, Netherlands, Poland, and Germany joined hands to target the cybergroups committing such large-scale attacks which can paralyse the Internet become inaccessible for a large faction of netizens. The services collectively seized were by far the most popular DDoS booter services on the market, receiving top billing on search engines. One such service taken down had been used to carry out over 30 million attacks. As part of this action, seven administrators have been arrested so far in the United States and the United Kingdom, with further actions planned against the users of these illegal services.  International police cooperation was central to the success of this operation as the administrators, users, critical infrastructure, and victims were scattered across the world. Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre coordinated the activities in Europe through its Joint Cybercrime Action Taskforce (J-CAT).

Participating Authorities

• United States: US Department of Justice (US DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
• United Kingdom: National Crime Agency (NCA)
• The Netherlands: National High Tech Crime Unit Landelijke Eenheid, Cybercrime team Midden-Nederland, Cybercrime team Noord-Holland and Cybercrime team Den Haag
• Germany: Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt), Hanover Police Department (Polizeidirektion Hannover), Public Prosecutor’s Office Verden (Staatsanwaltschaft Verden)
• Poland: National Police Cybercrime Bureau (Biuro do Walki z Cyber-przestępczością)

Issue related to DDoS Attacks

DDoS booter services have effectively lowered the entry barrier into cybercrime: for a fee as low as EUR 10, any low-skilled individual can launch DDoS attacks with the click of a button, knocking offline whole websites and networks by barraging them with traffic.  The damage they can do to victims can be considerable, crippling businesses financially and depriving people of essential services offered by banks, government institutions, and police forces. Emboldened by perceived anonymity, many young IT enthusiasts get involved in this seemingly low-level crime, unaware of the consequences that such online activities can carry. The influence of toolkits available on the dark net has made it easier for criminals to commit such crimes and at times even get away with it as well.

‍Recent examples of DDoS Attacks

• In February 2020, Amazon Web Services (AWS) suffered a DDoS attack sophisticated enough to keep its incident response teams occupied for several days also affecting customers worldwide.
• In February 2021, the EXMO Cryptocurrency exchange fell victim to a DDoS attack that rendered the organization inoperable for almost five hours.
• Recently, Australia experienced a significant, sustained, state-sponsored DDoS attack.
• Belgium also became a victim of a DDoS attack that targeted the country’s parliament, police services, and universities.

DDoS vs. DoS Attacks: What’s the Difference?

It’s important to avoid confusing a DDoS (distributed denial of service) attack with a DoS (denial of service) attack. Although only one word separates the two, these attacks vary significantly in nature.

• Strictly defined, a typical DDoS attack manipulates many distributed network devices between the attacker and the victim into waging an unwitting attack, exploiting legitimate behavior.
• A traditional DoS attack doesn’t use multiple, distributed devices, nor does it focus on devices between the attacker and the organization. These attacks also tend not to use multiple internet devices.

Conclusion

In this era of cyberspace, it is of paramount importance to maintain digital safety and security equivalent to physical safety, the cybercriminals will not stop at anything and can stoop to any level to target netizens and critical infrastructures in order to commit ransomware and malware attacks. As we can see DDoS-ing is taken seriously by law enforcement, at all levels of users, and are on the radar of law enforcement, be it a gamer booting out the competition out of a video game, or a high-level hacker carrying out DDoS attacks against commercial targets for financial gain.

Introduction

In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.

Brief Analysis of Prebunking 

Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation. 

The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it. 

The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.

There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution. 

Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions. 

Brief Analysis of Debunking 

Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem. 

Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.

Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts.  Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation.  Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.

Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis

Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions. 

1. Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions. 
2. Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
3. User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
4. Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.

Conclusion

The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential.  Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape. 

References

1. https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
2. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
3. https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
4. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/

‍