#FactCheck-Mosque fire in India? False, it's from Indonesia
Executive Summary:
A social media viral post claims to show a mosque being set on fire in India, contributing to growing communal tensions and misinformation. However, a detailed fact-check has revealed that the footage actually comes from Indonesia. The spread of such misleading content can dangerously escalate social unrest, making it crucial to rely on verified facts to prevent further division and harm.
Claim:
The viral video claims to show a mosque being set on fire in India, suggesting it is linked to communal violence.
Fact Check
The investigation revealed that the video was originally posted on 8th December 2024. A reverse image search allowed us to trace the source and confirm that the footage is not linked to any recent incidents. The original post, written in Indonesian, explained that the fire took place at the Central Market in Luwuk, Banggai, Indonesia, not in India.
Conclusion: The viral claim that a mosque was set on fire in India isn’t True. The video is actually from Indonesia and has been intentionally misrepresented to circulate false information. This event underscores the need to verify information before spreading it. Misinformation can spread quickly and cause harm. By taking the time to check facts and rely on credible sources, we can prevent false information from escalating and protect harmony in our communities.
- Claim: The video shows a mosque set on fire in India
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
March 3rd 2023, New Delhi: If you have received any message that contains a link asking users to download an application to avail Income Tax Refund or KYC benefits with the name of Income Tax Department or reputed Banks, Beware!
CyberPeace Foundation and Autobot Infosec Private Limited along with the academic partners under CyberPeace Center of Excellence (CCoE) recently conducted five different studies on phishing campaigns that have been circulating on the internet by using misleading tactics to convince users to install malicious applications on their devices. The first campaign impersonates the Income Tax Department, while the rest of the campaigns impersonate ICICI Bank, State Bank of India, IDFC Bank and Axis bank respectively. The phishing campaigns aim to trick users into divulging their personal and financial information.
After a detailed study, the research team found that:
- All campaigns appear to be an offer from reputed entities, however hosted on third-party domains instead of the official website of the Income Tax Department or the respective Banks, raising suspicion.
- The applications ask several access permissions of the device. Moreover some of them seek users to provide full control of the device. Allowing such access permission could result in a complete compromise of the system, including access to sensitive information such as microphone recordings, camera footage, text messages, contacts, pictures, videos, and even banking applications.
- Cybercriminals created malicious applications using icons that closely resemble those of legitimate entities with the intention of enticing users into downloading the malicious applications.
- The applications collect user’s personal and banking information. Getting into this type of trap could lead users to face significant financial losses.
- While investigating the impersonated Income Tax Department’s application, the Research team identified the application sends http traffic to a remote server which acts as a Command and Control (CnC/C2) for the application.
- Customers who desire to avail benefits or refunds from respective banks, download relevant apps, believing that the chosen app will assist them. However, they are not always aware that the app may be fraudulent.
“The Research highlights the importance of being vigilant while browsing the internet and not falling prey to such phishing attacks. It is crucial to be cautious when clicking on links or downloading attachments from unknown sources, as they may contain malware that can harm the device or compromise the data.” spokesperson, CyberPeace added.
In addition to this in an earlier report released in last month, the same research team had drawn attention to the WhatsApp messages masquerading as an offer from Tanishq Jewellers with links luring unsuspecting users with the promise of free valentine’s day presents making the rounds on the app.
CyberPeace Advisory:
- The Research team recommends that people should avoid opening such messages sent via social platforms. One must always think before clicking on such links, or downloading any attachments from unauthorised sources.
- Downloading any application from any third party sources instead of the official app store should be avoided. This will greatly reduce the risk of downloading a malicious app, as official app stores have strict guidelines for app developers and review each app before it gets published on the store.
- Even if you download the application from an authorised source, check the app’s permissions before you install it. Some malicious apps may request access to sensitive information or resources on your device. If an app is asking for too many permissions, it’s best to avoid it.
- Keep your device and the app-store app up to date. This will ensure that you have the latest security updates and bug fixes.
- Falling into such a trap could result in a complete compromise of the system, including access to sensitive information such as microphone recordings, camera footage, text messages, contacts, pictures, videos, and even banking applications and could lead users to financial loss.
- Do not share confidential details like credentials, banking information with such types of Phishing scams.
- Never share or forward fake messages containing links on any social platform without proper verification.
Executive Summary:
Recently, our team came across a widely circulated post on X (formerly Twitter), claiming that the Indian government would abolish paper currency from February 1 and transition entirely to digital money. The post, designed to resemble an official government notice, cited the absence of advertisements in Kerala newspapers as supposed evidence—an assertion that lacked any substantive basis
Claim:
The Indian government will ban paper currency from February 1, 2025, and adopt digital money as the sole legal tender to fight black money.
Fact Check:
The claim that the Indian government will ban paper currency and transition entirely to digital money from February 1 is completely baseless and lacks any credible foundation. Neither the government nor the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has made any official announcement supporting this assertion.
Furthermore, the supposed evidence—the absence of specific advertisements in Kerala newspapers—has been misinterpreted and holds no connection to any policy decisions regarding currency
During our research, we found that this was the prediction of what the newspaper from the year 2050 would look like and was not a statement that the notes will be banned and will be shifted to digital currency.
Such a massive change would necessitate clear communication to the public, major infrastructure improvements, and precise policy announcements which have not happened. This false rumor has widely spread on social media without even a shred of evidence from its source, which has been unreliable and is hence completely false.
We also found a clip from a news channel to support our research by asianetnews on Instagram.
We found that the event will be held in Jain Deemed-to-be University, Kochi from 25th January to 1st February. After this advertisement went viral and people began criticizing it, the director of "The Summit of Future 2025" apologized for this confusion. According to him, it was a fictional future news story with a disclaimer, which was misread by some of its readers.
The X handle of Summit of Future 2025 also posted a video of the official statement from Dr Tom.
Conclusion:
The claim that the Indian government will discontinue paper currency by February 1 and resort to full digital money is entirely false. There's no government announcement nor any evidence to support it. We would like to urge everyone to refer to standard sources for accurate information and be aware to avoid misinformation online.
- Claim: India to ban paper currency from February 1, switching to digital money.
- Claimed On: X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Introduction
In April 2026, there was a fascinating example of the risks of generative artificial intelligence (AI). An Indian medical student, aged 22, developed a fake AI-driven influencer "Emily Hart" and leveraged the persona to amass a substantial social media following, engagement and revenue.
It isn't just a case of online fraud. It is a turning point in the nature of influence, veracity, and profitability in the digital world. Ultimately, it poses a troubling question. If users can't tell the difference between real and fake people, then what is online trust?
The Making of a Synthetic Influencer
“Emily Hart” was a young, conservative American nurse. The identity was completely made-up, created with the help of AI programs that produced eerily realistic images, captions and engagement techniques.
The creator did not work with random content. They crafted the influencer to cater to a particular audience. With this in mind, the account was able to target conservatives in the United States who are politically active. It is reported that some of its posts have achieved millions of views, and within a few months, the influencer had thousands of followers.
Monetisation followed naturally. The account owner monetised through subscriptions and the sale of merchandise, reportedly earning thousands of dollars a month with fewer than an hour a day of "work" on the account.
The disproportionate effort and reward is what is interesting about this case. This is a unique example of how people can now use very little capital to create digital personas that attract value.
Why It Worked: Engagement, Identity, and Algorithmic Incentives
The "Emily Hart" case was no accident. It was enabled by three complementary factors.
First, identity targeting was crucial. The persona was constructed to fit a particular worldview and culture, making it more relevant and resonating with the target audience. AI platforms were even deployed to better target and position the persona, and it is suggested that micro-targeting would increase engagement.
Second, it was amplified by algorithms. Social media algorithms favour engagement, sometimes favouring emotional and divisive content. The account exploited this by producing visually appealing content with a strong political message, what the creator called "engageable" content.
Third, the authenticity of the AI content minimised distrust. Generative models have become so realistic that it is hard to tell if images are real or not. Specialists point out that AI increases the credibility and scalability of fake profiles, increasing their influence and reach.
All of this combined to make deception profitable.
The Blurring of Authenticity in Digital Spaces
The "Emily Hart" phenomenon is emblematic of a broader shift in authenticity. Historically, influence was correlated with human personalities who establish trust over time. But AI upends this paradigm by allowing the creation of entirely fabricated personalities capable of mimicking, and even surpassing, human influencers.
This has two immediate consequences.
First, the truth is harder to discern. While platforms might require that AI-generated content be disclosed, there are inconsistencies in how this is policed. Here, the account apparently didn't disclose until it was banned for fraud.
Second, authenticity may not be as important to consumers. Consumers may view content for ideological or emotional reasons, rather than for its accuracy. This indicates that the rise of synthetic influencers is not just a technical problem but also a behavioural one.
The implication is stark. The internet is evolving into a place where authenticity is more important than truth.
Economic Incentives and the Rise of Synthetic Monetisation
The key difference between this fraud and previous ones is the business model. This creator didn't break into a computer or steal personal information. He cultivated an audience and sold attention.
This is an example of how the internet economy works. Attention is a commodity and platforms aim to generate it. AI reduces the cost of creating attention-generating artefacts, enabling people to amplify their reach.
This gives rise to synthetic monetisation. Online characters can be developed, fine-tuned and leveraged as money-spinning assets. In this case, identity is a product.
This raises regulatory challenges. Current laws on fraud, advertising and consumer protection may not be sufficient to cover cases of deceptive content sourced from an identity.
Platform Responsibility and Enforcement Gaps
The role of platforms in enabling such scenarios cannot be overlooked. Although platforms have policy guidelines on disclosure of AI-generated content, these are inconsistently applied.
In the case of "Emily Hart", the account apparently existed for some time before being shut down for scamming. This implies that either the ability to detect such accounts is weak or the tools used are reactive.
The challenge is structural. Companies are rewarded for engagement, and fake accounts can help to achieve this. But they must also promote authenticity and protect against fraud.
This presents a challenge between commercial interests and user safety. Without enforcement, synthetic influencers will become more prevalent.
Policy Implications: Rethinking Trust and Verification
The "Emily Hart" incident highlights a number of policy issues.
First, disclosure policies must be improved and harmonised. Consumers need to be clear when content is generated by AI, and platforms need to police this.
Second, identity verification needs to be updated. Classic forms of verification may not hold up in an era of imaginary characters amassing legions of fans. Alternative digital verification may be needed.
Third, new regulations should apply to synthetic identities. This means clarifying distinctions between art, commerce and fraud.
Finally, digital literacy becomes critical. Consumers need to be equipped to operate in a space where virtual personas aren't always human.
Conclusion
The rise of "Emily Hart" is not just an example of one person using AI to make money. It is a glimpse of a digital revolution.
AI is redefining how influence can be generated, trust can be established and value can be monetized. As digital personas become more realistic, the distinction between human and machine will remain unclear.
The challenge will not be to stop AI being used to generate content. It is to ensure that the systems that mediate our online interactions are able to tell the difference, and that we are not left on our own to sort it all out.
When anyone can make a convincing identity for themselves, trust will no longer be a given. It will need to be engineered, policed and protected.
