#FactCheck-AI-Generated Viral Image of US President Joe Biden Wearing a Military Uniform

In an era defined by perpetual technological advancement, the hitherto uncharted territories of the human experience are progressively being illuminated by the luminous glow of innovation. The construct of privacy, once a straightforward concept involving personal secrets and solitude, has evolved into a complex web of data protection, consent, and digital rights. This notion of privacy, which often feels as though it elusively ebbs and flows like the ghost of a bygone epoch, is now confronted with a novel intruder – neurotechnology – which promises to redefine the very essence of individual sanctity.

Why Neuro Rights

At the forefront of this existential conversation lie ventures like Elon Musk's Neuralink. This company, which finds itself at the confluence of fantastical dreams and tangible reality, teases a future where the contents of our thoughts could be rendered as accessible as the words we speak. An existence where machines not only decipher our mental whispers but hold the potential to echo back, reshaping our cognitive landscapes. This startling innovation sets the stage for the emergence of 'neurorights' – a paradigm aimed at erecting a metaphorical firewall around the synapses and neurons that compose our innermost selves.

At institutions such as the University of California, Berkeley, researchers, under the aegis of cognitive scientists like Jack Gallant, are already drawing the map of once-inaccessible territories within the mind. Gallant's landmark study, which involved decoding the brain activity of volunteers as they absorbed visual stimuli, opened Pandora's box regarding the implications of mind-reading. The paper published a decade ago, was an inchoate step toward understanding the narrative woven within the cerebral cortex. Although his work yielded only a rough sketch of the observed video content, it heralded an era where thought could be translated into observable media.

The Growth

This rapid acceleration of neuro-technological prowess has not gone unnoticed on the sociopolitical stage. In a pioneering spirit reminiscent of the robust legislative eagerness of early democracies, Chile boldly stepped into the global spotlight in 2021 by legislating neurorights. The Chilean senate's decision to constitutionalize these rights sent ripples the world over, signalling an acknowledgement that the evolution of brain-computer interfaces was advancing at a daunting pace. The initiative was spearheaded by visionaries like Guido Girardi, a former senator whose legislative foresight drew clear parallels between the disruptive advent of social media and the potential upheaval posed by emergent neurotechnology.

Pursuit of Regulation

Yet the pursuit of regulation in such an embryonic field is riddled with intellectual quandaries and ethical mazes. Advocates like Allan McCay articulate the delicate tightrope that policy-makers must traverse. The perils of premature regulation are as formidable as the risks of a delayed response – the former potentially stifling innovation, the latter risking a landscape where technological advances could outpace societal control, engendering a future fraught with unforeseen backlashes. 

Such is the dichotomy embodied in the story of Ian Burkhart, whose life was irrevocably altered by the intervention of neurotechnology. Burkhart's experience, transitioning from quadriplegia to digital dexterity through sheer force of thought, epitomizes the utopic potential of neuronal interfaces. Yet, McCay issues a solemn reminder that with great power comes great potential for misuse, highlighting contentious ethical issues such as the potential for the criminal justice system to over extend its reach into the neural recesses of the human psyche.

Firmly ensconced within this brave new world, the quest for prudence is of paramount importance. McCay advocates for a dyadic approach, where privacy is vehemently protected and the workings of technology proffered with crystal-clear transparency. The clandestine machinations of AI and the danger of algorithmic bias necessitate a vigorous, ethical architecture to govern this new frontier. 

As legal frameworks around the globe wrestle with the implications of neurotechnology, countries like India, with their burgeoning jurisprudence regarding privacy, offer a vantage point into the potential shape of forthcoming legislation. Jurists and technology lawyers, including Jaideep Reddy, acknowledge ongoing protections yet underscore the imperativeness of continued discourse to gauge the adequacy of current laws in this nascent arena.

Conclusion 

The dialogue surrounding neurorights emerges, not merely as another thread in our social fabric, but as a tapestry unto itself – intricately woven with the threads of autonomy, liberty, and privacy. As we hover at the edge of tomorrow, these conversations crystallize into an imperative collective undertaking, promising to define the sanctity of cognitive liberty. The issue at hand is nothing less than a societal reckoning with the final frontier – the safeguarding of the privacy of our thoughts.

References:

https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/neurorights-neurotechnology-brain-implant-9030260/

‍

Executive Summary:

The photograph of a bridge allegedly in Mumbai, India circulated through social media was found to be false. Through investigations such as reverse image searches, examination of similar videos, and comparison with reputable news sources and google images,  it has been found that the bridge in the viral photo is  the Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay Bridge located in Qingdao, China. Multiple pieces of evidence, including matching architectural features and corroborating videos tell us that the bridge is not from Mumbai. No credible reports or sources have been found to prove the existence of a similar bridge in Mumbai. 

Claims:

Social media users claim a viral image of the bridge is from Mumbai.

Fact Check:

Once the image was received, it was investigated under the reverse image search to find any lead or any information related to it. We found an image published by Mirror News media outlet, though we are still unsure but we can see the same upper pillars and the foundation pillars with the same color i.e white in the viral image. 

The name of the Bridge is Jiaozhou Bay Bridge located in China, which connects the eastern port city of the country to an offshore island named Huangdao.

Taking a cue from this we then searched for the Bridge to find any other relatable images or videos. We found a YouTube Video uploaded by a channel named xuxiaopang, which has some similar structures like pillars and road design. 

‍

‍

In reverse image search, we found another news article that tells about the same bridge in China, which is more likely similar looking.

Upon lack of evidence and credible sources for opening a similar bridge in Mumbai, and after a thorough investigation we concluded that the claim made in the viral image is misleading and false. It’s a bridge located in China not in Mumbai.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, after fact-checking it was found that the viral image of the bridge allegedly in Mumbai, India was claimed to be false. The bridge in the picture climbed to be  Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay Bridge actually happened to be located in Qingdao, China.  Several sources such as reverse image searches, videos, and reliable news outlets prove the same. No evidence exists to suggest that there is such a bridge like that in Mumbai. Therefore, this claim is false because the actual bridge is in China, not in Mumbai.

• Claim: The bridge seen in the popular social media posts is in Mumbai.
• Claimed on: X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook, 
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

‍

Introduction

Google’s search engine is widely known for its ability to tailor its search results based on user activity, enhancing the relevance of search outcomes. Recently, Google introduced the ‘Try Without Personalisation’ feature. This feature allows users to view results independent of their prior activity. This change marks a significant shift in platform experiences, offering users more control over their search experience while addressing privacy concerns. 

However, even in this non-personalised mode, certain contextual factors including location, language, and device type, continue to influence results. This essentially provides the search with a baseline level of relevance. This feature carries significant policy implications, particularly in the areas of privacy, consumer rights, and market competition. 

Understanding the Feature

When users engage with this option of non-personalised search, it will no longer show them helpful individual results that are personalisation-dependent and will instead provide unbiased search results. Essentially,this feature provides users with neutral (non-personalised) search results by bypassing their data. 

This feature allows the following changes:

• Disables the user’s ability to find past searches in Autofill/Autocomplete.
• Does not pause or delete stored activity within a user’s Google account. Users, because of this feature, will be able to pause or delete stored activity through data and privacy controls.
• The feature doesn't delete or disable app/website preferences like language or search settings are some of the unaffected preferences.
• It also does not disable or delete the material that users save.
• When a user is signed in, they can ‘turn off the personalisation’ by clicking on the search option at the end of the webpage. These changes, offered by the feature, in functionality, have significant implications for privacy, competition, and user trust.

Policy Implications: An Analysis

This feature aligns with global privacy frameworks such as the GDPR in the EU and the DPDP Act in India. By adhering to principles like data minimisation and user consent, it offers users control over their data and the choice to enable or disable personalisation, thereby enhancing user autonomy and trust. 

However, there is a trade-off between user expectations for relevance and the impartiality of non-personalised results. Additionally, the introduction of such features may align with emerging regulations on data usage, transparency, and consent. Policymakers play a crucial role in encouraging innovations like these while ensuring they safeguard user rights and maintain a competitive market.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

Google's 'Try Without Personalisation' feature represents a pivotal moment for innovation by balancing user privacy with search functionality. By aligning with global privacy frameworks such as the GDPR and the DPDP Act, it empowers users to control their data while navigating the complex interplay between relevance and neutrality. However, its success hinges on overcoming technical hurdles, fostering user understanding, and addressing competitive and regulatory scrutiny. As digital platforms increasingly prioritise transparency, such features could redefine user expectations and regulatory standards in the evolving tech ecosystem.

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/google-search-results-try-without-personalisation-new-feature-9710243/ 
• https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/12410098?hl=en 
• https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/5/24314402/google-turn-off-personalized-search-results