#FactCheck - AI-Generated Video Falsely Claims Death of Iran’s Supreme Leader

Starting on 16th February 2025, Google changed its advertisement platform program policy. It will permit advertisers to employ device fingerprinting techniques for user tracking. Organizations that use their advertising services are now permitted to use fingerprinting techniques for tracking their users' data. Originally announced on 18th December 2024, this rule change has sparked yet another debate regarding privacy and profits.

The Issue

Fingerprinting is a technique that allows for the collection of information about a user’s device and browser details, ultimately enabling the creation of a profile of the user. Not only used for or limited to targeting advertisements, data procured in such a manner can be used by private entities and even government organizations to identify individuals who access their services. If information on customization options, such as language settings and a user’s screen size, is collected, it becomes easier to identify an individual when combined with data points like browser type, time zone, battery status, and even IP address.

What makes this technique contentious at the moment is the lack of awareness regarding the information being collected from the user and the inability to opt out once permissions are granted.

This is unlike Google’s standard system of data collection through permission requests, such as accepting website cookies—small text files sent to the browser when a user visits a particular website. While contextual and first-party cookies limit data collection to enhance user experience, third-party cookies enable the display of irrelevant advertisements while users browse different platforms. Due to this functionality, companies can engage in targeted advertising.

This issue has been addressed in laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU) and the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 (India), which mandate strict rules and regulations regarding advertising, data collection, and consent, among other things. One of the major requirements in both laws is obtaining clear, unambiguous consent. This also includes the option to opt out of previously granted permissions for cookies.

However, in the case of fingerprinting, the mechanism of data collection relies on signals that users cannot easily erase. While clearing all data from the browser or refusing cookies might seem like appropriate steps to take, they do not prevent tracking through fingerprinting, as users can still be identified using system details that a website has already collected. This applies to all IoT products as well. People usually do not frequently change the devices they use, and once a system is identified, there are no available options to stop tracking, as fingerprinting relies on device characteristics rather than data-collecting text files that could otherwise be blocked.

Google’s Changing Stance

According to Statista, Google’s revenue is largely made up of the advertisement services it provides (amounting to 264.59 billion U.S. dollars in 2024). Any change in its advertisement program policies draws significant attention due to its economic impact.

In 2019, Google claimed in a blog post that fingerprinting was a technique that “subverts user choice and is wrong.” It is in this context that the recent policy shift comes as a surprise. In response, the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office), the UK’s data privacy watchdog, has stated that this change is irresponsible. Google, however, is eager to have further discussions with the ICO regarding the policy change.

Conclusion

The debate regarding privacy in targeted advertising has been ongoing for quite some time. Concerns about digital data collection and storage have led to new and evolving laws that mandate strict fines for non-compliance.

Google’s shift in policy raises pressing concerns about user privacy and transparency. Fingerprinting, unlike cookies, offers no opt-out mechanism, leaving users vulnerable to continuous tracking without consent. This move contradicts Google’s previous stance and challenges global regulations like the GDPR and DPDP Act, which emphasize clear user consent.

With regulators like the ICO expressing disapproval, the debate between corporate profits and individual privacy intensifies. As digital footprints become harder to erase, users, lawmakers, and watchdogs must scrutinize such changes to ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of fundamental privacy rights

References

• https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/profit-over-privacy-google-gives-advertisers-more-personal-info-in-major-fingerprinting-u-turn
• https://www.ccn.com/news/technology/googles-new-fingerprinting-policy-sparks-privacy-backlash-as-ads-become-harder-to-avoid/
• https://www.emarketer.com/content/google-pivot-digital-fingerprinting-enable-better-cross-device-measurement
• https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2025/01/16/google-adopts-new-stance-on-device-fingerprinting-102ju7b
• https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2025/01/16/ico-consults-on-storage-and-access-cookies-guidance-102ju62
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm21g0052dno 
• https://www.techradar.com/features/browser-fingerprinting-explained
• https://fingerprint.com/blog/canvas-fingerprinting/
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/#:~:text=In%20the%20most%20recently%20reported,billion%20U.S.%20dollars%20in%202024

‍

Introduction

In the digital realm of social media, Meta Platforms, the driving force behind Facebook and Instagram, faces intense scrutiny following The Wall Street Journal's investigative report. This exploration delves deeper into critical issues surrounding child safety on these widespread platforms, unravelling algorithmic intricacies, enforcement dilemmas, and the ethical maze surrounding monetisation features. Instances of "parent-managed minor accounts" leveraging Meta's subscription tools to monetise content featuring young individuals have raised eyebrows. While skirting the line of legality, this practice prompts concerns due to its potential appeal to adults and the associated inappropriate interactions. It's a nuanced issue demanding nuanced solutions.

Failed Algorithms 

The very heartbeat of Meta's digital ecosystem, its algorithms, has come under intense scrutiny. These algorithms, designed to curate and deliver content, were found to actively promoting accounts featuring explicit content to users with known pedophilic interests. The revelation sparks a crucial conversation about the ethical responsibilities tied to the algorithms shaping our digital experiences. Striking the right balance between personalised content delivery and safeguarding users is a delicate task.

While algorithms play a pivotal role in tailoring content to users' preferences, Meta needs to reevaluate the algorithms to ensure they don't inadvertently promote inappropriate content. Stricter checks and balances within the algorithmic framework can help prevent the inadvertent amplification of content that may exploit or endanger minors.

Major Enforcement Challenges

Meta's enforcement challenges have come to light as previously banned parent-run accounts resurrect, gaining official verification and accumulating large followings. The struggle to remove associated backup profiles adds layers to concerns about the effectiveness of Meta's enforcement mechanisms. It underscores the need for a robust system capable of swift and thorough actions against policy violators.

To enhance enforcement mechanisms, Meta should invest in advanced content detection tools and employ a dedicated team for consistent monitoring. This proactive approach can mitigate the risks associated with inappropriate content and reinforce a safer online environment for all users.

The financial dynamics of Meta's ecosystem expose concerns about the exploitation of videos that are eligible for cash gifts from followers. The decision to expand the subscription feature before implementing adequate safety measures poses ethical questions. Prioritising financial gains over user safety risks tarnishing the platform's reputation and trustworthiness. A re-evaluation of this strategy is crucial for maintaining a healthy and secure online environment.

To address safety concerns tied to monetisation features, Meta should consider implementing stricter eligibility criteria for content creators. Verifying the legitimacy and appropriateness of content before allowing it to be monetised can act as a preventive measure against the exploitation of the system.

Meta's Response 

In the aftermath of the revelations, Meta's spokesperson, Andy Stone, took centre stage to defend the company's actions. Stone emphasised ongoing efforts to enhance safety measures, asserting Meta's commitment to rectifying the situation. However, critics argue that Meta's response lacks the decisive actions required to align with industry standards observed on other platforms. The debate continues over the delicate balance between user safety and the pursuit of financial gain. A more transparent and accountable approach to addressing these concerns is imperative.

To rebuild trust and credibility, Meta needs to implement concrete and visible changes. This includes transparent communication about the steps taken to address the identified issues, continuous updates on progress, and a commitment to a user-centric approach that prioritises safety over financial interests.

The formation of a task force in June 2023 was a commendable step to tackle child sexualisation on the platform. However, the effectiveness of these efforts remains limited. Persistent challenges in detecting and preventing potential child safety hazards underscore the need for continuous improvement. Legislative scrutiny adds an extra layer of pressure, emphasising the urgency for Meta to enhance its strategies for user protection.

To overcome ongoing challenges, Meta should collaborate with external child safety organisations, experts, and regulators. Open dialogues and partnerships can provide valuable insights and recommendations, fostering a collaborative approach to creating a safer online environment.

Drawing a parallel with competitors such as Patreon and OnlyFans reveals stark differences in child safety practices. While Meta grapples with its challenges, these platforms maintain stringent policies against certain content involving minors. This comparison underscores the need for universal industry standards to safeguard minors effectively. Collaborative efforts within the industry to establish and adhere to such standards can contribute to a safer digital environment for all.

To align with industry standards, Meta should actively participate in cross-industry collaborations and adopt best practices from platforms with successful child safety measures. This collaborative approach ensures a unified effort to protect users across various digital platforms.

Conclusion

Navigating the intricate landscape of child safety concerns on Meta Platforms demands a nuanced and comprehensive approach. The identified algorithmic failures, enforcement challenges, and controversies surrounding monetisation features underscore the urgency for Meta to reassess and fortify its commitment to being a responsible digital space. As the platform faces this critical examination, it has an opportunity to not only rectify the existing issues but to set a precedent for ethical and secure social media engagement.

This comprehensive exploration aims not only to shed light on the existing issues but also to provide a roadmap for Meta Platforms to evolve into a safer and more responsible digital space. The responsibility lies not just in acknowledging shortcomings but in actively working towards solutions that prioritise the well-being of its users.

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/instagram-facebook-prioritised-money-over-child-safety-claims-report/articleshow/107952778.cms
• https://www.adweek.com/blognetwork/meta-staff-found-instagram-tool-enabled-child-exploitation-the-company-pressed-ahead-anyway/107604/
• https://www.tbsnews.net/tech/meta-staff-found-instagram-subscription-tool-facilitated-child-exploitation-yet-company

‍

Executive Summary:

A photo claiming that Mr. Rowan Atkinson, the famous actor who played the role of Mr. Bean, lying sick on bed is circulating on social media. However, this claim is false. The image is a digitally altered picture of Mr.Barry Balderstone from Bollington, England, who died in October 2019 from advanced Parkinson’s disease. Reverse image searches and media news reports confirm that the original photo is of Barry, not Rowan Atkinson. Furthermore, there are no reports of Atkinson being ill; he was recently seen attending the 2024 British Grand Prix. Thus, the viral claim is baseless and misleading.

Claims:

A viral photo of Rowan Atkinson aka Mr. Bean, lying on a bed in sick condition.

‍

Fact Check:

When we received the posts, we first did some keyword search based on the claim made, but no such posts were found to support the claim made.Though, we found an interview video where it was seen Mr. Bean attending F1 Race on July 7, 2024. 

Then we reverse searched the viral image and found a news report that looked similar to the viral photo of Mr. Bean, the T-Shirt seems to be similar in both the images.

‍

The man in this photo is Barry Balderstone who was a civil engineer from Bollington, England, died in October 2019 due to advanced Parkinson’s disease. Barry received many illnesses according to the news report and his application for extensive healthcare reimbursement was rejected by the East Cheshire Clinical Commissioning Group.

Taking a cue from this, we then analyzed the image in an AI Image detection tool named, TrueMedia. The detection tool found the image to be AI manipulated. The original image is manipulated by replacing the face with Rowan Atkinson aka Mr. Bean.

‍

Hence, it is clear that the viral claimed image of Rowan Atkinson bedridden is fake and misleading. Netizens should verify before sharing anything on the internet.

Conclusion:

Therefore, it can be summarized that the photo claiming Rowan Atkinson in a sick state is fake and has been manipulated with another man’s image. The original photo features Barry Balderstone, the man who was diagnosed with stage 4 Parkinson’s disease and subsequently died in 2019. In fact, Rowan Atkinson seemed perfectly healthy recently at the 2024 British Grand Prix. It is important for people to check on the authenticity before sharing so as to avoid the spreading of misinformation.

• Claim: A Viral photo of Rowan Atkinson aka Mr. Bean, lying on a bed in a sick condition.
• Claimed on: X, Facebook
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading