#FactCheck - AI-Generated Flyover Collapse Video Shared With Misleading Claims
Executive Summary
A video showing a flyover collapse is going viral on social media. The clip shows a flyover and a road passing beneath it, with vehicles moving normally. Suddenly, a portion of the flyover appears to collapse and fall onto the road below, with some vehicles seemingly coming under its impact. The video has been widely shared by users online. However, research by the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false. The probe revealed that the video is not real but has been created using artificial intelligence.
Claim:
On X (formerly Twitter), a user shared the viral video on February 13, 2026, claiming it showed the reality of India’s infrastructure development and criticizing ongoing projects. The post quickly gained traction, with several users sharing it as a real incident. Similarly, another user shared the same video on Facebook on February 13, 2026, making a similar claim.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, key frames from the viral video were extracted and searched using Google Lens. During the search, the video was traced to an account named “sphereofai” on Instagram, where it had been posted on February 9. The post included hashtags such as “AI Creator” and “AI Generated,” clearly indicating that the video was created using AI. Further examination of the account showed that the user identifies themselves as an AI content creator.
To confirm the findings, the viral video was also analysed using Hive Moderation. The tool’s analysis suggested a 99 percent probability that the video was AI-generated.
Conclusion:
The research established that the viral flyover collapse video is not authentic. It is an AI-generated clip being circulated online with misleading claims.
Related Blogs
Introduction
A disturbing trend of courier-related cyber scams has emerged, targeting unsuspecting individuals across India. In these scams, fraudsters pose as officials from reputable organisations, such as courier companies or government departments like the narcotics bureau. Using sophisticated social engineering tactics, they deceive victims into divulging personal information and transferring money under false pretences. Recently, a woman IT professional from Mumbai fell victim to such a scam, losing Rs 1.97 lakh.
Instances of courier-related cyber scams
Recently, two significant cases of courier-related cyber scams have surfaced, illustrating the alarming prevalence of such fraudulent activities.
- Case in Delhi: A doctor in Delhi fell victim to an online scam, resulting in a staggering loss of approximately Rs 4.47 crore. The scam involved fraudsters posing as representatives of a courier company. They informed the doctor about a seized package and requested substantial money for verification purposes. Tragically, the doctor trusted the callers and lost substantial money.
- Case in Mumbai: In a strikingly similar incident, an IT professional from Mumbai, Maharashtra, lost Rs 1.97 lakh to cyber fraudsters pretending to be officials from the narcotics department. The fraudsters contacted the victim, claiming her Aadhaar number was linked to the criminals’ bank accounts. They coerced the victim into transferring money for verification through deceptive tactics and false evidence, resulting in a significant financial loss.
These recent cases highlight the growing threat of courier-related cyber scams and the devastating impact they can have on unsuspecting individuals. It emphasises the urgent need for increased awareness, vigilance, and preventive measures to protect oneself from falling victim to such fraudulent schemes.
Nature of the Attack
The cyber scam typically begins with a fraudulent call from someone claiming to be associated with a courier company. They inform the victim that their package is stuck or has been seized, escalating the situation by involving law enforcement agencies, such as the narcotics department. The fraudsters manipulate victims by creating a sense of urgency and fear, convincing them to download communication apps like Skype to establish credibility. Fabricated evidence and false claims trick victims into sharing personal information, including Aadhaar numbers, and coercing them to make financial transactions for verification purposes.
Best Practices to Stay Safe
To protect oneself from courier-related cyber scams and similar frauds, individuals should follow these best practices:
- Verify Calls and Identity: Be cautious when receiving calls from unknown numbers. Verify the caller’s identity by cross-checking with relevant authorities or organisations before sharing personal information.
- Exercise Caution with Personal Information: Avoid sharing sensitive personal information, such as Aadhaar numbers, bank account details, or passwords, over the phone or through messaging apps unless necessary and with trusted sources.
- Beware of Urgency and Threats: Scammers often create a sense of urgency or threaten legal consequences to manipulate victims. Remain vigilant and question any unexpected demands for money or personal information.
- Double-Check Suspicious Claims: If contacted by someone claiming to be from a government department or law enforcement agency, independently verify their credentials by contacting the official helpline or visiting the department’s official website.
- Educate and Spread Awareness: Share information about these scams with friends, family, and colleagues to raise awareness and collectively prevent others from falling victim to such frauds.
Legal Remedies
In case of falling victim to a courier-related cyber scam, individuals can sort to take the following legal actions:
- File a First Information Report (FIR): In case of falling victim to a courier-related cyber scam or any similar online fraud, individuals have legal options available to seek justice and potentially recover their losses. One of the primary legal actions that can be taken is to file a First Information Report (FIR) with the local police. The following sections of Indian law may be applicable in such cases:
- Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offence of cheating by impersonation. It states that whoever cheats by impersonating another person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine, or both.
- Section 420 of the IPC: This section covers the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It states that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
- Section 66(C) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000: This section deals with the offence of identity theft. It states that whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly, makes use of the electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature of any other person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
- Section 66(D) of the IT Act, 2000 pertains to the offence of cheating by personation by using a computer resource. It states that whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource, cheats by personating shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
- National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal- One powerful resource available to victims is the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, equipped with a 24×7 helpline number, 1930. This portal serves as a centralised platform for reporting cybercrimes, including financial fraud.
Conclusion:
The rise of courier-related cyber scams demands increased vigilance from individuals to protect themselves against fraud. Heightened awareness, caution, and scepticism when dealing with unknown callers or suspicious requests are crucial. By following best practices, such as verifying identities, avoiding sharing sensitive information, and staying updated on emerging scams, individuals can minimise the risk of falling victim to these fraudulent schemes. Furthermore, spreading awareness about such scams and promoting cybersecurity education will play a vital role in creating a safer digital environment for everyone.
Introduction
Beginning with the premise that the advent of the internet has woven a rich but daunting digital web, intertwining the very fabric of technology with the variegated hues of human interaction, the EU has stepped in as the custodian of this ever-evolving tableau. It is within this sprawling network—a veritable digital Minotaur's labyrinth—that the European Union has launched a vigilant quest, seeking not merely to chart its enigmatic corridors but to instil a sense of order in its inherent chaos.
The Digital Services Act (DSA) is the EU's latest testament to this determined pilgrimage, a voyage to assert dominion over the nebulous realms of cyberspace. In its latest sagacious move, the EU has levelled its regulatory lance at the behemoths of digital indulgence—Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat—monarchs in the realm of adult entertainment, each commanding millions of devoted followers.
Applicability of DSA
Graced with the moniker of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), these titans of titillation are now facing the complex weave of duties delineated by the DSA, a legislative leviathan whose coils envelop the shadowy expanses of the internet with an aim to safeguard its citizens from the snares and pitfalls ensconced within. Like a vigilant Minotaur, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, stands steadfast, enforcing compliance with an unwavering gaze.
The DSA is more than a mere compilation of edicts; it encapsulates a deeper, more profound ethos—a clarion call announcing that the wild frontiers of the digital domain shall be tamed, transforming into enclaves where the sanctity of individual dignity and rights is zealously championed. The three corporations, singled out as the pioneers to be ensnared by the DSA's intricate net, are now beckoned to embark on an odyssey of transformation, realigning their operations with the EU's noble envisioning of a safeguarded internet ecosystem.
The Paradigm Shift
In a resolute succession, following its first decree addressing 19 Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines, the Commission has now ensconced the trinity of adult content purveyors within the DSA's embrace. The act demands that these platforms establish intuitive user mechanisms for reporting illicit content, prioritize communications from entities bestowed with the 'trusted flaggers' title, and elucidate to users the rationale behind actions taken to restrict or remove content. Paramount to the DSA's ethos, they are also tasked with constructing internal mechanisms to address complaints, forthwith apprising law enforcement of content hinting at criminal infractions, and revising their operational underpinnings to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and security of minors.
But the aspirations of the DSA stretch farther, encompassing a realm where platforms are agents against deception and manipulation of users, categorically eschewing targeted advertisement that exploits sensitive profiling data or is aimed at impressionable minors. The platforms must operate with an air of diligence and equitable objectivity, deftly applying their terms of use, and are compelled to reveal their content moderation practices through annual declarations of transparency.
The DSA bestows upon the designated VLOPs an even more intensive catalogue of obligations. Within a scant four months of their designation, Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat are mandated to implement measures that both empower and shield their users—especially the most vulnerable, minors—from harms that traverse their digital portals. Augmented content moderation measures are requisite, with critical risk analyses and mitigation strategies directed at halting the spread of unlawful content, such as child exploitation material or the non-consensual circulation of intimate imagery, as well as curbing the proliferation and repercussions of deepfake-generated pornography.
The New Rules
The DSA enshrines the preeminence of protecting minors, with a staunch requirement for VLOPs to contrive their services so as to anticipate and enfeeble any potential threats to the welfare of young internet navigators. They must enact operational measures to deter access to pornographic content by minors, including the utilization of robust age verification systems. The themes of transparency and accountability are amplified under the DSA's auspices, with VLOPs subject to external audits of their risk assessments and adherence to stipulations, the obligation to maintain accessible advertising repositories, and the provision of data access to rigorously vetted researchers.
Coordinated by the Commission in concert with the Member States' Digital Services Coordinators, vigilant supervision will be maintained to ensure the scrupulous compliance of Pornhub, Stripchat, and XVideos with the DSA's stringent directives. The Commission's services are poised to engage with the newly designated platforms diligently, affirming that initiatives aimed at shielding minors from pernicious content, as well as curbing the distribution of illegal content, are effectively addressed.
The EU's monumental crusade, distilled into the DSA, symbolises a pledge—a testament to its steadfast resolve to shepherd cyberspace, ensuring the Minotaur of regulation keeps the bedlam at a manageable compass and the sacrosanctity of the digital realm inviolate for all who meander through its infinite expanses. As we cast our gazes toward February 17, 2024—the cusp of the DSA's comprehensive application—it is palpable that this legislative milestone is not simply a set of guidelines; it stands as a bold, unflinching manifesto. It beckons the advent of a novel digital age, where every online platform, barring small and micro-enterprises, will be enshrined in the lofty ideals imparted by the DSA.
Conclusion
As we teeter on the edge of this nascent digital horizon, it becomes unequivocally clear: the European Union's Digital Services Act is more than a mundane policy—it is a pledge, a resolute statement of purpose, asserting that amid the vast, interwoven tapestry of the internet, each user's safety, dignity, and freedoms are enshrined and hold the intrinsic significance meriting the force of the EU's legislative guard. Although the labyrinth of the digital domain may be convoluted with complexity, guided by the DSA's insightful thread, the march toward a more secure, conscientious online sphere forges on—resolute, unerring, one deliberate stride at a time.
References
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6763https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/three-of-the-biggest-porn-sites-must-verify-ages-under-eus-new-digital-law-1566874.html
Executive Summary
Misleading claims related to an incident in Delhi are being widely circulated on social media. Several posts allege that an Indian Army brigadier and his son were assaulted while returning from a “dance club party.” The posts further claim that the attack was triggered by remarks related to “Operation Sindoor.” However, research by the CyberPeace found that these claims are completely false and fabricated.
Claim
On social media platform X, some users (including @ManipurPost5) shared posts claiming that an Indian Army brigadier and his son were attacked after returning from a dance club. The posts also alleged that the altercation escalated after someone mocked “Operation Sindoor.”
Fact check
To verify the claim, we conducted keyword searches on Google and found a report published by Republic World on April 14, 2026, which included visuals similar to those being circulated.
According to the report, the victims were identified as Brigadier Parminder Singh Arora, a serving Indian Army officer, and his son Tejas Arora. At the time of the incident, they were taking a walk near their residence after dinner. Reports state that they noticed a group of individuals consuming alcohol inside a parked car in a public place and objected to it. This led to an argument, which later escalated into a violent assault. Around 7–8 individuals allegedly attacked the brigadier and his son, with the son sustaining more serious injuries. Questions have also been raised about the role of police personnel present at the scene. Following the complaint, a case was registered, one police constable was suspended, and two accused individuals have been arrested so far. The vehicle involved has also been seized. Further verification led us to another report published by India Today on April 14, 2026, which corroborated the same details of the incident.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading and entirely false.The incident has no connection to any “dance club party” or to “Operation Sindoor.” In reality, the altercation began after the brigadier objected to public drinking near his residence.
