#FactCheck - Viral Postcard Attributing Fake UGC Statement to Keshav Prasad Maurya Is False

Introduction
‍

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and applications in companies has been largely presented as a groundbreaking development for enterprises. The potential for increased productivity and efficiently scaled companies eliminates repetitive tasks and builds a narrative that practically writes itself for executives. What has largely been ignored, however, is its effect on its users- the employees.  Evidence from across the United States, United Kingdom, and continental Europe indicates an increase in psychological disengagement from work, along with an increase in the number of people who are actively sabotaging the very systems that companies have invested millions of dollars to implement, as a direct result of being forced to work with AI. 

‍

The Backdrop: Quiet Quitting
‍

Quiet quitting is a form of employee disengagement  wherein workers meet only the basic expectations of their job without. Gallup puts global employee engagement at just 21%. State of the Global Workplace 2026 report which analysed employee well-being across 160 countries reports that in India,  employee and manager engagement has declined. Around 62% of workers describe themselves as not engaged, and another 17% are actively disengaged — not just drifting, but potentially pulling in the opposite direction. What does this mean for productivity? Gallup estimates this costs the global economy roughly $8.9 trillion in lost productivity each year, around 9% of world GDP. This is the workplace AI has entered into. 

‍

How AI Is Changing the Nature of Work

‍

The promise was simpler work but employees report that the reality is often more of it. AI raises output expectations without necessarily reducing effort. Workers now lose the equivalent of 51 working days per year to technology friction, nearly two full months up 42% from 2025. Poorly integrated systems force employees to spend hours troubleshooting or correcting AI-generated outputs, adding cognitive load rather than removing it. Focus efficiency dropped to a three-year low of 60%, as collaboration time surged 34% and multitasking climbed 12%. AI is not eliminating work. It is transforming it into something more demanding and more fragmented. The psychological dimension is equally documented. TalentLMS research found that 54% of employees report persistent workplace unhappiness, with one in five experiencing it frequently or constantly. 29% report unmanageable workloads during this transition, and 15% do not clearly understand their role expectations in an AI-transformed workplace. When workers cannot see where they fit, withdrawal is a rational response.

Then there is the fear. IBM announced it would not replace roughly 7,800 back-office positions that could be handled by AI, framing it as natural attrition. Klarna said its AI assistant was doing the work of 700 full-time customer service agents. Dropbox laid off 16% of its workforce, with its CEO explicitly citing the need to “make room for AI.” AI was the leading cause of job cuts in March 2026  the first time that has happened since tracking began. 

‍

The Causal Link: AI Anxiety to Quiet Quitting
‍

A peer-reviewed study published in March 2025 establishes the causal mechanism between forced AI adoption and employee disengagement. Conducted across 457 employees in Turkish SMEs, it found that AI anxiety does not directly compel people to resign. Instead, it triggers quiet quitting a form of progressive disengagement that functions as a precursor to departure. Drawing on Withdrawal Progression Theory, the study frames quiet quitting as a preliminary stage of turnover intention, where withdrawal progresses from mild detachment toward eventual exit. The integrated causal chain runs as follows: forced AI adoption creates work intensification and job anxiety, which produce burnout and loss of autonomy, which trigger psychological withdrawal, which precedes turnover. DHR Global’s Workforce Trends Report for 2026 found that overall employee engagement dropped from 88% to 64% in a single year. Crucially, 69% of C-suite leaders say their company has communicated clearly about AI’s impact on jobs but only 12% of entry-level staff agree. When the people most exposed to displacement are also the least informed about what is happening to their roles, disengagement is not a mystery. It is a response to a vacuum of information.

‍

From Disengagement to Active Withdrawal
‍

Quiet quitting is then a natural response. But what has emerged alongside it is something more active, and it is where the disengagement crisis tips into something organisations are unprepared for. The Writer and Workplace Intelligence survey of 2,400 knowledge workers found that 29% of employees admit to willfully withdrawing from their company’s AI strategy. Among Gen Z workers, that figure jumps to 44%. Active withdrawal takes several forms: entering proprietary data into public AI chatbots, using unapproved tools, outright refusing to engage with mandated platforms, and in some cases deliberately generating low-quality outputs to make the technology look ineffective. For Gen Z, the resistance has a structural logic. Junior roles in finance, law, and tech the traditional “learning by doing” rungs of the career ladder have declined by 32% since 2022. For a 22-year-old, AI is not a tool; it is a competitor that has already taken their first job. Workers who resist AI out of fear for their jobs are making themselves more vulnerable to the outcome they dread. 77% of executives say employees who refuse to become proficient in AI will not be considered for promotions or leadership roles, and 60% are considering cutting those who refuse to adopt it entirely.

Meanwhile, 75% of executives admit their company’s AI strategy is “more for show” than a meaningful guide to outcomes. Only 29% report significant ROI from generative AI, despite 97% claiming to have already deployed agents across their organisation. 39% of business leaders admit they made employees redundant as a result of deploying AI of whom 55% concede they made the wrong decisions about those redundancies. Organisations are moving fast, getting it wrong, and the cost is being absorbed by the workforce.

‍

Conclusion
‍

AI is not directly causing quiet quitting. However, AI is changing how we view working relationships; it will continue to result in predictable outcomes of poor execution of AI (i.e. passive to active disengagement) and radically change the way that we work, primarily by creating an increase in job demands, reducing autonomy, and  raising worker anxiety without providing any transparency about future AI technology use.  If AI continues to create a challenging work environment, it may lead to increased psychological detachment from work and ultimately result in productivity losses, possibly canceling out the very gains expected from AI integration. This globally rising disengagement from AI tools begets the question: is technology being deployed responsibly? 

‍

References 
‍

1. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx 
2. https://www.walkme.com/news-releases/enterprises-lose-51-workdays-per-employee-to-technology-friction-annually-despite-record-ai-investment-walkme-global-study-of-3750-finds/.  
3. https://www.activtrak.com/resources/state-of-the-workplace/ 
4. https://peoplemanagingpeople.com/employee-retention/quiet-cracking/ 
5. https://www.webpronews.com/the-quiet-revolt-gen-z-workers-are-deliberately-undermining-ai-deployments-from-the-inside/ 
6. https://www.uctoday.com/productivity-automation/44-of-gen-z-workers-are-sabotaging-your-enterprise-ai-rollout-the-problem-isnt-gen-z/ 
7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11939379/ 
8. https://huntscanlon.com/workforce-trends-2026-leaders-confront-burnout-disengagement-and-ai-driven-change/ 
9. https://fortune.com/2026/04/08/gen-z-workers-sabotage-ai-rollout-backlash/  
10. https://peoplemanagingpeople.com/employee-retention/quiet-cracking/
11. https://www.hrgrapevine.com/us/content/article/2026-04-09-ai-adoption-is-tearing-companies-apart-says-new-report 
12. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/india-leads-in-workplace-disengagement-as-quiet-quitting-trend-rises-why-are-indians-mentally-checking-out-at-jobs/articleshow/130104773.cms?from=mdr 

‍

Introduction

Your iPhone isn’t just a device: it’s a central hub for almost everything in your life. From personal photos and videos to sensitive data, it holds it all. You rely on it for essential services, from personal to official communications, sharing of information, banking and financial transactions, and more. With so much critical information stored on your device, protecting it from cyber threats becomes essential. This is where the iOS Lockdown Mode feature comes in as a digital bouncer to keep cyber crooks at bay.

Apple introduced the ‘lockdown’ mode in 2022. It is a new optional security feature and is available on iPhones, iPads, and Mac devices. It works as an extreme and optional protection mechanism for a certain segment of users who might be at a higher risk of being targeted by serious cyber threats and intrusions into their digital security.  So people like journalists, activists, government officials, celebrities, cyber security professionals, law enforcement professionals, and lawyers etc are some of the intended beneficiaries of the feature. Sometimes the data on their devices can be highly confidential and it can cause a lot of disruption if leaked or compromised by cyber threats. Given how prevalent cyber attacks are in this day and age, the need for such a feature cannot be overstated. This feature aims at providing an additional firewall by limiting certain functions of the device and hence reducing the chances of the user being targeted in any digital attack. 

How to Enable Lockdown Mode in Your iPhone

On your iPhone running on iOS 16 Developer Beta 3, you just need to go to Settings - Privacy and Security - Lockdown Mode. Tap on Turn on Lockdown Mode, and read all the information regarding the features that will be unavailable on your device if you go forward, and if you’re satisfied with the same all you have to do is scroll down and tap on Turn on Lockdown Mode. Your iPhone will get restarted with Lockdown Mode enabled. 

Easy steps to enable lockdown mode are as follows:

1. Open the Settings app.
2. Tap Privacy & Security.
3. Scroll down, tap Lockdown Mode, then tap Turn On Lockdown Mode.

‍

How Lockdown Mode Protects You

Lockdown Mode is a security feature that prevents certain apps and features from functioning properly when enabled. For example, your device will not automatically connect to Wi-Fi networks without security and will disconnect from a non-secure network when Lockdown Mode is activated. Many other features may be affected because the system will prioritise security standards above the typical operational functions. Since lockdown mode restricts certain features and activities, one can exclude a particular app or website in Safari from being impacted and limited by restrictions. Only exclude trusted apps or websites if necessary.

References:

1. https://support.apple.com/en-in/105120#:~:text=Tap%20Privacy%20%26%20Security.,then%20enter%20your%20device%20passcode
2. https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/apple-lockdown-mode-what-is-it-and-how-it-prevents-spyware-attacks-124041200667_1.html

‍

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/

‍