#FactCheck - Edited Video of ‘India-India’ Chants at Republican National Convention

A video has been going viral on social media in recent days in which Republic TV’s Editor-in-Chief and anchor Arnab Goswami can allegedly be heard using objectionable language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. While sharing the video, users are claiming that Arnab Goswami publicly made controversial remarks about the Prime Minister.

An investigation by CyberPeace Foundation found this claim to be completely false. Our probe revealed that the viral video is edited and is being circulated on social media with a misleading narrative. In the original video, Arnab Goswami was not making any personal statement; rather, he was referring to an old statement made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

‍

Viral Claim

‍

An Instagram user posted this video on 5 January 2026. In the video, a voice resembling Arnab Goswami is heard saying, “Ye jo Narendra Modi hain, ye chhe mahine baad ghar se nahi nikal paayenge aur Hindustan ke log inhein danda maarenge.”

(Translation: “This Narendra Modi will not be able to step out of his house after six months, and the people of India will beat him with sticks.”)

‍

The post link, its archive link, and screenshots can be seen below:

‍

• Instagram link: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTHrO7bk7Rf/?igsh=MThzbzBlcm82eWN0ZA%3D%3D
• Archive link: https://archive.ph/oaYsf

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the viral claim, we first examined the video using Google Lens search. During this process, we found a video published on 18 July 2024 on the official YouTube channel of Republic Bharat. The investigation revealed that this video is the longer (extended) version of the viral clip.

After carefully watching the full video, it became clear that Arnab Goswami was not making the statement himself. Instead, he was referring to a remark made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi during the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This confirms that the viral video was clipped and presented out of context.

The related video link can be seen below: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KlQV25-3l8s

‍

‍

‍

In the next step of the investigation, to verify whether Rahul Gandhi had indeed made such a statement, we conducted a customized keyword search on Google. During this, we found a video published on 6 February 2020 on the official YouTube channel of India Today.

In this video, recorded during a public event ahead of the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, Rahul Gandhi is seen sharply attacking Prime Minister Narendra Modi, stating that if the Prime Minister fails to resolve the issue of unemployment in the country, the youth would beat him with sticks.

‍

The video link is given below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qCSA5nG9Y

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The CyberPeace Foundation’s investigation found this claim to be completely fake. The viral video is edited and is being shared in a misleading context. In the original video, Arnab Goswami was referring to an old statement made by Rahul Gandhi, which was selectively clipped and presented in a way that falsely suggests Arnab Goswami himself made objectionable remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

‍

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

Misinformation is rampant all over the world and impacting people at large. In 2023, UNESCO commissioned a survey on the impact of Fake News which was conducted by IPSOS. This survey was conducted in 16 countries that are to hold national elections in 2024 with a total of 2.5 billion voters and showed how pressing the need for effective regulation had become and found that 85% of people are apprehensive about the repercussions of online disinformation or misinformation. UNESCO has introduced a plan to regulate social media platforms in light of these worries, as they have become major sources of misinformation and hate speech online. This action plan is supported by the worldwide opinion survey, highlighting the urgent need for strong actions. The action plan outlines the fundamental principles that must be respected and concrete measures to be implemented by all stakeholders associated, i.e., government, regulators, civil society and the platforms themselves. 

The Key Areas in Focus of the Action Plan

The focus area of the action plan is on the protection of the Freedom of Expression while also including access to information and other human rights in digital platform governance. The action plan works on the basic premise that the impact on human rights becomes the compass for all decision-making, at every stage and by every stakeholder. Groups of independent regulators work in close coordination as part of a wider network, to prevent digital companies from taking advantage of disparities between national regulations. Moderation of content as a feasible and effective option at the required scale, in all regions and all languages. 

The algorithms of these online platforms, particularly the social media platforms are established, but it is too often geared towards maximizing engagement rather than the reliability of information. Platforms are required to take on more initiative to educate and train users to be critical thinkers and not just hopers. Regulators and platforms are in a position to take strong measures during particularly sensitive conditions ranging from elections to crises, particularly the information overload that is taking place.

Key Principles of the Action Plan

1. Human Rights Due Diligence: Platforms are required to assess their impact on human rights, including gender and cultural dimensions, and to implement risk mitigation measures. This would ensure that the platforms are responsible for educating users about their rights.
2. Adherence to International Human Rights Standards: Platforms must align their design, content moderation, and curation with international human rights standards. This includes ensuring non-discrimination, supporting cultural diversity, and protecting human moderators.
3. Transparency and Openness: Platforms are expected to operate transparently, with clear, understandable, and auditable policies. This includes being open about the tools and algorithms used for content moderation and the results they produce.
4. User Access to Information: Platforms should provide accessible information that enables users to make informed decisions. 
5. Accountability: Platforms must be accountable to their stakeholders which would include the users and the public, which would ensure that redressal for content-related decisions is not compromised. This accountability extends to the implementation of their terms of service and content policies.

Enabling Environment for the application of the UNESCO Plan

The UNESCO Action Plan to counter misinformation has been created to create an environment where freedom of expression and access to information flourish, all while ensuring safety and security for digital platform users and non-users. This endeavour calls for collective action—societies as a whole must work together. Relevant stakeholders, from vulnerable groups to journalists and artists, enable the right to expression. 

Conclusion

The UNESCO Action Plan is a response to the dilemma that has been created due to the information overload, particularly, because the distinction between information and misinformation has been so clouded. The IPSOS survey has revealed the need for an urgency to address these challenges in the users who fear the repercussions of misinformation. 

The UNESCO action plan provides a comprehensive framework that emphasises the protection of human rights, particularly freedom of expression, while also emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and education in the governance of digital platforms as a priority. By advocating for independent regulators and encouraging platforms to align with international human rights standards, UNESCO is setting the stage for a more responsible and ethical digital ecosystem. 

The recommendations include integrating regulators through collaborations and promoting global cooperation to harmonize regulations, expanding the Digital Literacy campaign to educate users about misinformation risks and online rights, ensuring inclusive access to diverse content in multiple languages and contexts, and monitoring and refining tech advancements and regulatory strategies as challenges evolve. To ultimately promote a true online information landscape.

Reference

• https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/online-disinformation-unesco-unveils-action-plan-regulate-social-media-platforms
• https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/11/unesco_ipsos_survey.pdf ‍
• https://dig.watch/updates/unesco-sets-out-strategy-to-tackle-misinformation-after-ipsos-survey