#FactCheck: Old Salman Khan Video From 2019 Misleadingly Shared as Eid Post
Executive Summary:
A video of actor Salman Khan is being widely shared on social media with the claim that he posted a special video on the occasion of Eid. However, a research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is not recent but dates back to 2019. Meanwhile, Salman Khan did share a different video with his family this year.
Claim:
On Facebook, a user shared the viral video on March 21, 2026, with the caption ,“Salman Khan shared a special video on Eid.”
Post link and archive link:
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we examined Salman Khan’s social media accounts. On his Instagram handle, we found a video posted on March 21, 2026, in which he is seen greeting fans from a bulletproof balcony along with his family on the occasion of Eid.
This video is completely different from the viral clip and has no connection to it. Further, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found the same video on Salman Khan’s Instagram account, where it was originally posted on June 5, 2019.
Post link:
https://www.instagram.com/p/ByVMS6alo76/?igsh=MTA3ZDBqdGlidmRhMQ%3D%3D
Conclusion:
The viral claim is misleading. The video being shared is not recent but from 2019. Salman Khan did share a video this year, but it is different from the one going viral.
Related Blogs
%20(1).jpg)
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven autonomous weapons are reshaping military strategy, acting as force multipliers that can independently assess threats, adapt to dynamic combat environments, and execute missions with minimal human intervention, pushing the boundaries of modern warfare tactics. AI has become a critical component of modern technology-driven warfare and has simultaneously impacted many spheres in a technology-driven world. Nations often prioritise defence for significant investments, supporting its growth and modernisation. AI has become a prime area of investment and development for technological superiority in defence forces. India’s focus on defence modernisation is evident through initiatives like the Defence AI Council and the Task Force on Strategic Implementation of AI for National Security.
The main requirement that Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) require is the “autonomy” to perform their functions when direction or input from a human actor is absent. AI is not a prerequisite for the functioning of AWSs, but, when incorporated, AI could further enable such systems. While militaries seek to apply increasingly sophisticated AI and automation to weapons technologies, several questions arise. Ethical concerns have been raised for AWS as the more prominent issue by many states, international organisations, civil society groups and even many distinguished figures.
Ethical Concerns Surrounding Autonomous Weapons
The delegation of life-and-death decisions to machines is the ethical dilemma that surrounds AWS. A major concern is the lack of human oversight, raising questions about accountability. What if AWS malfunctions or violates international laws, potentially committing war crimes? This ambiguity fuels debate over the dangers of entrusting lethal force to non-human actors. Additionally, AWS poses humanitarian risks, particularly to civilians, as flawed algorithms could make disastrous decisions. The dehumanisation of warfare and the violation of human dignity are critical concerns when AWS is in question, as targets become reduced to mere data points. The impact on operators’ moral judgment and empathy is also troubling, alongside the risk of algorithmic bias leading to unjust or disproportionate targeting. These ethical challenges are deeply concerning.
Balancing Ethical Considerations and Innovations
It is immaterial how advanced a computer becomes in simulating human emotions like compassion, empathy, altruism, or other emotions as the machine will only be imitating them, not experiencing them as a human would. A potential solution to this ethical predicament is using a 'human-in-the-loop' or 'human-on-the-loop' semi-autonomous system. This would act as a compromise between autonomy and accountability.
A “human-on-the-loop” system is designed to provide human operators with the ability to intervene and terminate engagements before unacceptable levels of damage occur. For example, defensive weapon systems could autonomously select and engage targets based on their programming, during which a human operator retains full supervision and can override the system within a limited period if necessary.
In contrast, a ‘human-in-the-loop” system is intended to engage individual targets or specific target groups pre-selected by a human operator. Examples would include homing munitions that, once launched to a particular target location, search for and attack preprogrammed categories of targets within the area.
International Debate and Regulatory Frameworks
The regulation of autonomous weapons that employ AI, in particular, is a pressing global issue due to the ethical, legal, and security concerns it contains. There are many ongoing efforts at the international level which are in discussion to regulate such weapons. One such example is the initiative under the United Nations Convention on CertainConventional Weapons (CCW), where member states, India being an active participant, debate the limits of AI in warfare. However, existing international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, offer legal protection by prohibiting indiscriminate attacks and mandating the distinction between combatants and civilians. The key challenge lies in achieving global consensus, as different nations have varied interests and levels of technological advancement. Some countries advocate for a preemptive ban on fully autonomous weapons, while others prioritise military innovation. The complexity of defining human control and accountability further complicates efforts to establish binding regulations, making global cooperation both essential and challenging.
The Future of AI in Defence and the Need for Stronger Regulations
The evolution of autonomous weapons poses complex ethical and security challenges. As AI-driven systems become more advanced, a growing risk of its misuse in warfare is also advancing, where lethal decisions could be made without human oversight. Proactive regulation is crucial to prevent unethical use of AI, such as indiscriminate attacks or violations of international law. Setting clear boundaries on autonomous weapons now can help avoid future humanitarian crises. India’s defence policy already recognises the importance of regulating the use of AI and AWS, as evidenced by the formation of bodies like the Defence AI Project Agency (DAIPA) for enabling AI-based processes in defence Organisations. Global cooperation is essential for creating robust regulations that balance technological innovation with ethical considerations. Such collaboration would ensure that autonomous weapons are used responsibly, protecting civilians and combatants, while encouraging innovation within a framework prioritising human dignity and international security.
Conclusion
AWS and AI in warfare present significant ethical, legal, and security challenges. While these technologies promise enhanced military capabilities, they raise concerns about accountability, human oversight, and humanitarian risks. Balancing innovation with ethical responsibility is crucial, and semi-autonomous systems offer a potential compromise. India’s efforts to regulate AI in defence highlight the importance of proactive governance. Global cooperation is essential in establishing robust regulations that ensure AWS is used responsibly, prioritising human dignity and adherence to international law, while fostering technological advancement.
References
● https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/reaim-summit-ai-war-weapons-9556525/
Pretext
On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline. Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).
The Issue
Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –
- The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
- The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
- The market for general web search services in India
- The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
- The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.
Supreme Courts Opinion
In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.
Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.
Conclusion
As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.
Executive Summary
A video showing people running amid smoke and chaos during an attack is being widely shared on social media with the claim that it depicts an Iranian strike on Israel. The clip, around 29 seconds long, shows thick black smoke rising as people flee the scene, with voices heard calling for help. However, research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is misleading. The video is actually from the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States.
Claim:
The video has been shared on Facebook with a caption claiming, “Iran has launched its most powerful attack on Israel. Thousands of soldiers have reportedly been killed. Massive protests have erupted within the country, and Israel appears completely helpless.”
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search using keyframes from the viral video. This led us to a longer version of the same footage uploaded on YouTube on September 11, 2016.
The relevant portion appears around the 2-minute 9-second mark. The video description identifies the footage as part of the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Further, we found the same video in an archive folder on a website associated with the US Department of Commerce, which contains multiple images and videos related to the 9/11 attacks. This further confirms the origin of the footage.
Conclusion:
The viral claim is false. The video does not show an Iranian attack on Israel. It is from September 2001 and depicts the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks in New York, USA.
