#FactCheck - AI-Generated Video Falsely Claims Salman Khan Is Joining AIMIM

Executive Summary
‍
‍

Amid reports of heavy rainfall and flooding in several cities of the United Arab Emirates, a video is being widely circulated on social media claiming to show recent scenes from Dubai. The clip allegedly depicts severe waterlogging at Dubai Airport and inside shopping malls, with users linking it to a “recent storm.”According to research by CyberPeace, the viral footage is not recent. The video is actually a compilation of three different clips stitched together and dates back to 2024, when Dubai experienced unprecedented flooding following heavy rains.

‍

Claim
‍

The misleading post was shared by an X (formerly Twitter) user named ‘Ruksar Khan’ on March 28, 2026, with a caption suggesting that Dubai had been submerged after just one day of rain. The post attempted to sensationalize the situation by portraying the visuals as current.
‍

• https://x.com/Ruksar_Khan_002/status/2037864585911521407
• https://perma.cc/TVF5-4UVU

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the claim, keyframes from the viral video were extracted using the InVid tool and analyzed through reverse image search. One of the clips was traced to a Facebook post by “9 News,” uploaded on April 17, 2024. The video showed waterlogged runways at Dubai International Airport following intense rainfall and flooding.

• https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=999625415095377

‍

‍

Further verification led to a report published by Hindustan Times on April 17, 2024, which featured similar visuals and confirmed that the footage was from the floods that hit Dubai in 2024.

‍

‍

Conclusion:
‍

The viral claim suggesting that the video shows recent flooding in Dubai is false. The footage is nearly two years old and originates from the 2024 floods in Dubai. It is now being reshared with misleading claims to create confusion around current weather events.

‍

Introduction

In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.

Brief Analysis of Prebunking 

Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation. 

The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it. 

The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.

There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution. 

Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions. 

Brief Analysis of Debunking 

Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem. 

Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.

Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts.  Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation.  Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.

Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis

Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions. 

1. Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions. 
2. Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
3. User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
4. Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.

Conclusion

The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential.  Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape. 

References

1. https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
2. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
3. https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
4. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/

‍

Introduction

In today’s digital world, where everything is related to data, the more data you own, the more control and compliance you have over the market, which is why companies are looking for ways to use data to improve their business. But at the same time, they have to make sure they are protecting people’s privacy. It is very tricky to strike a balance between both of them. Imagine you are trying to bake a cake where you need to use all the ingredients to make it taste great, but you also have to make sure no one can tell what’s in it. That’s kind of what companies are dealing with when it comes to data. Here, ‘Pseudonymisation’ emerges as a critical technical and legal mechanism that offers a middle ground between data anonymisation and unrestricted data processing. 

Legal Framework and Regulatory Landscape 

Pseudonymisation, as defined by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Article 4(5), refers to “the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person”. This technique represents a paradigm shift in data protection strategy, enabling organisations to preserve data utility while significantly reducing privacy risks. The growing importance of this balance is evident in the proliferation of data protection laws worldwide, from GDPR in Europe to India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) of 2023. 

Its legal treatment varies across jurisdictions, but a convergent approach is emerging that recognises its value as a data protection safeguard while maintaining that the pseudonymised data remains personal data. Article 25(1) of GDPR recognises it as “an appropriate technical and organisational measure” and emphasises its role in reducing risks to data subjects. It protects personal data by reducing the risk of identifying individuals during data processing. The European Data Protection Board’s (EDPB) 2025 Guidelines on Pseudonymisation provide detailed guidance emphasising the importance of defining the “pseudonymisation domain”. It defines who is prevented from attributing data to specific individuals and ensures that the technical and organised measures are in place to block unauthorised linkage of pseudonymised data to the original data subjects. In India, while the DPDP Act does not explicitly define pseudonymisation, legal scholars argue that such data would still fall under the definition of personal data, as it remains potentially identifiable. The Act defines personal data defined in section 2(t) broadly as “any data about an individual who is identifiable by or in relation to such data,” suggesting that the pseudonymised information, being reversible, would continue to require compliance with data protection obligations. 

Further, the DPDP  Act, 2023 also includes principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation. Section 8(4) says that a “Data Fiduciary shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure effective observance of the provisions of this Act and the Rules made under it.” The concept of Pseudonymization fits here because it is a recognised technical safeguard, which means companies can use pseudonymization as one of the methods or part of their compliance toolkit under Section 8(4) of the DPDP Act. However, its use should be assessed on a case to case basis, since ‘encryption’ is also considered one of the strongest methods for protecting personal data. The suitability of pseudonymization depends on the nature of the processing activity, the type of data involved, and the level of risk that needs to be mitigated. In practice, organisations may use pseudonymization in combination with other safeguards to strengthen overall compliance and security.

The European Court of Justice’s recent jurisprudence has introduced nuanced considerations about when pseudonymised data might not constitute personal data for certain entities. In cases where only the original controller possesses the means to re-identify individuals, third parties processing such data may not be subject to the full scope of data protection obligations, provided they cannot reasonably identify the data subjects. The “means reasonably likely” assessment represents a significant development in understanding the boundaries of data protection law. 

Corporate Implementation Strategies 

Companies find that pseudonymisation is not just about following rules, but it also brings real benefits. By using this technique, businesses can keep their data more secure and reduce the damage in the event of a breach. Customers feel more confident knowing that their information is protected, which builds trust. Additionally, companies can utilise this data for their research or other important purposes without compromising user privacy. 

Key Benefits of Pseudonymisation:

1. Enhanced Privacy Protection: It hides personal details like names or IDs with fake ones (with artificial values or codes), making it harder for accidental privacy breaches.
2. Preserved Data Utility: Unlike completely anonymous data, pseudonymised data keeps its usefulness by maintaining important patterns and relationships within datasets.
3. Facilitate Data Sharing: It’s easier to share pseudonymised data with partners or researchers because it protects privacy while still being useful.

However, using pseudonymisation is not as easy as companies have to deal with tricky technical issues like choosing the right methods, such as encryption or tokenisation and managing security keys safely. They have to implement strong policies to stop anyone from figuring out who the data belongs to. This can get expensive and complicated, especially when dealing with a large amount of data, and it often requires expert help and regular upkeep. 

Balancing Privacy Rights and Data Utility

The primary challenge in pseudonymisation is striking the right balance between protecting individuals' privacy and maintaining the utility of the data. To get this right, companies need to consider several factors, such as why they are using the data, the potential hacker's level of skill, and the type of data being used.

Conclusion 

Pseudonymisation offers a practical middle ground between full anonymisation and restricted data use, enabling organisations to harness the value of data while protecting individual privacy. Legally, it is recognised as a safeguard but still treated as personal data, requiring compliance under frameworks like GDPR and India’s DPDP Act. For companies, it is not only regulatory adherence but also ensuring that it builds trust and enhances data security. However, its effectiveness depends on robust technical methods, governance, and vigilance. Striking the right balance between privacy and data utility is crucial for sustainable, ethical, and innovation-driven data practices.

References:

1. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/
2. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf
3. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-25-gdpr/
4. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2025-01/edpb_guidelines_202501_pseudonymisation_en.pdf
5. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=303863&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=16466915
6. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=303863&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=16466915

‍