#Factcheck-False Claims of Houthi Attack on Israel’s Ashkelon Power Plant

Executive Summary

‍
Amid rising tensions in West Asia and concerns over the safety of Indian seafarers, a video showing a vessel engulfed in flames and thick black smoke is being widely circulated on social media. The clip is being shared with the claim that it depicts a US attack on a ship carrying Indian nationals in Omani waters. CyberPeace Research Wing  research found the claim to be misleading. The viral video predates the incident it is being linked to and is not related to any recent attack.

‍

Claim:
‍

A Facebook user shared the video alleging that the United States attacked a ship carrying Indian citizens in the maritime region near Oman. The post has been widely circulated as part of the ongoing West Asia tensions. Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/reel/3031094270427837, https://www.facebook.com/reel/3031094270427837 

‍

‍

Fact Check:
‍

A reverse image search of keyframes from the viral video led to several media reports published on 2 March 2026, which carried the same visuals seen in the circulating clip. The reports indicated that the footage showed a vessel targeted amid escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, following restrictions on maritime movement in the region. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/iran-targets-6th-ship-in-hormuz-strait-video-shows-billowing-smoke-11159019

‍

‍

Further research also found the same visuals in a Moneycontrol report published on 2 March 2026. The report clearly established that the footage is from an earlier incident and not linked to any recent developments. https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/indian-crew-member-killed-after-drone-boat-strikes-oil-tanker-off-oman-coast-first-indian-casualty-in-us-iran-tensions-article-13848303.html

‍

‍

Conclusion:
‍

The research confirms that the viral video is not related to any recent US attack on a vessel carrying Indian nationals. The footage has been online since at least March 2026 and shows an earlier incident involving the oil tanker Skylight during tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. Hence, the claim being circulated on social media is misleading.

‍

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍

Introduction

Smartphones have revolutionised human connectivity. In 2023, it was estimated that almost 96% of the global digital population is accessing the internet via their mobile phones and India alone has 1.05 billion users. Information consumption has grown exponentially due to the enhanced accessibility that these mobiles provide. These devices allow accessibility to information no matter where one is, and have completely transformed how we engage with the world around us, be it to skim through work emails while commuting, video streaming during breaks, reading an ebook at our convenience or even catching up on news at any time or place. Mobile phones  grant us instant access to the web and are always within reach. 

But this instant connection has its downsides too, and one of the most worrying of these is the rampant rise of misinformation. These tiny screens and our constant, on-the-go dependence on them can be directly linked to the spread of “fake news,” as people consume more and more content in rapid bursts, without taking the time to really process the same or think deeply about its authenticity. There is an underlying cultural shift in how we approach information and learning currently: the onslaught of vast amounts of “bite-sized information” discourages people from researching what they’re being told or shown. The focus has shifted from learning deeply to consuming more and sharing faster. And this change in audience behaviour is making us vulnerable to misinformation, disinformation and unchecked foreign influence.

The Growth of Mobile Internet Access 

More than 5 billion people are connected to the internet and web traffic is increasing rapidly. The developed countries in North America and Europe are experiencing mobile internet penetration at a universal rate.  Contrastingly, the developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are experiencing rapid growth in this penetration. The introduction of affordable smartphones and low-cost mobile data plans has expanded access to internet connectivity. 4G and 5G infrastructure development have further bridged any connectivity gaps. This widespread access to the mobile internet has democratised information, allowing millions of users to participate in the digital economy.  Access to educational resources while at the same time engaging in global conversations is one such example of the democratisation of information. This reduces the digital divide between diverse groups and empowers communities with unprecedented access to knowledge and opportunities.

The Nature of Misinformation in the Mobile Era 

Misinformation spread has become more prominent in recent times and one of the contributing factors is the rise of mobile internet. This instantaneous connection has made social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, and X (formerly Twitter) available on a single compact and portable device. These social media platforms enable users to share content instantly and to a wide user base, many times without verifying its accuracy. The virality of social media sharing, where posts can reach thousands of users in seconds, accelerates the spread of false information. This ease of sharing, combined with algorithms that prioritise engagement, creates a fertile ground for misinformation to flourish, misleading vast numbers of people before corrections or factual information can be disseminated. 

Some of the factors that are amplifying misinformation sharing through mobile internet are algorithmic amplification which prioritises engagement, the ease of sharing content due to instant access and user-generated content, the limited media literacy of users and the echo chambers which reinforce existing biases and spread false information. 

Gaps and Challenges due to the increased accessibility of  Mobile Internet 

Despite growing concerns about misinformation spread due to mobile internet, policy responses remain inadequate, particularly in developing countries. These gaps include: the lack of algorithm regulation, as social media platforms prioritise engaging content, often fueling misinformation. Inadequate international cooperation further complicates enforcement, as addressing the cross-border nature of misinformation has been a struggle for national regulations. 

Additionally, balancing content moderation with free speech remains challenging, with efforts to curb misinformation sometimes leading to concerns over censorship. 

Finally, a deficit in media literacy leaves many vulnerable to false information. Governments and international organisations must prioritise public education to equip users with the required skills to evaluate online content, especially in low-literacy regions.

CyberPeace Recommendations

Addressing misinformation via mobile internet requires a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach. 

• Governments should mandate algorithm transparency, ensuring social media platforms disclose how content is prioritised and give users more control. 
• Collaborative fact-checking initiatives between governments, platforms, and civil society could help flag or correct false information before it spreads, especially during crises like elections or public health emergencies. 
• International organisations should lead efforts to create standardised global regulations to hold platforms accountable across borders. 
• Additionally, large-scale digital literacy campaigns are crucial, teaching the public how to assess online content and avoid misinformation traps.

Conclusion

Mobile internet access has transformed information consumption and bridged the digital divide. At the same time, it has also accelerated the spread of misinformation. The global reach and instant nature of mobile platforms, combined with algorithmic amplification, have created significant challenges in controlling the flow of false information. Addressing this issue requires a collective effort from governments, tech companies, and civil society to implement transparent algorithms, promote fact-checking, and establish international regulatory standards. Digital literacy should be enhanced to empower users to assess online content and counter any risks that it poses.  

References

• https://www.statista.com/statistics/1289755/internet-access-by-device-worldwide/ 
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/01/are-smartphones-making-fake-news-and-disinformation-worse/
• https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/03/07/7-key-findings-about-mobile-phone-and-social-media-use-in-emerging-economies/ft_19-02-28_globalmobilekeytakeaways_misinformation/ 
• https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/slow-scroll-users-less-vigilant-about-misinformation-mobile-phones 

‍