#FactCheck - Virat Kohli's Ganesh Chaturthi Video Falsely Linked to Ram Mandir Inauguration

Introduction

In the intricate maze of our interconnected world, an unseen adversary conducts its operations with a stealth almost poetic in its sinister intent. This adversary — malware — has extended its tendrils into the digital sanctuaries of Mac users, long perceived as immune to such invasive threats. Our narrative today does not deal with the physical and tangible frontlines we are accustomed to; this is a modern tale of espionage, nestled in the zeros and ones of cyberspace.

The Mac platform, cradled within the fortifications of Apple's walled garden ecosystem, has stood as a beacon of resilience amidst the relentless onslaught of cyber threats. However, this sense of imperviousness has been shaken at its core, heralding a paradigm shift. A new threat lies in wait, bridging the gap between perceived security and uncomfortable vulnerability.

The seemingly invincible Mac OS X, long heralded for its robust security features and impervious resilience to virus attacks, faces an undercurrent of siege tactics from hackers driven by a relentless pursuit for control. This narrative is not about the front-and-centre warfare we see so often reported in media headlines. Instead, it veils itself within the actions of users as benign as the download of pirated software from the murky depths of warez websites.  

The Incident 

The casual act, born out of innocence or economic necessity, to sidestep the financial requisites of licensed software, has become the unwitting point of compromised security. Users find themselves on the battlefield, one that overshadows the significance of its physical counterpart with its capacity for surreptitious harm. The Mac's seeming invulnerability is its Achilles' heel, as the wariness against potential threats has been eroded by the myth of its impregnability.

The architecture of this silent assault is not one of brute force but of guile. Cyber marauders finesse their way through the defenses with a diversified arsenal; pirated content is but a smokescreen behind which trojans lie in ambush. The very appeal of free access to premium applications is turned against the user, opening a rift that permits these malevolent forces to ingress.

The trojans that permeate the defenses of the Mac ecosystem are architects of chaos. They surreptitiously enrol devices into armies of sorts – botnets which, unbeknownst to their hosts, become conduits for wider assaults on privacy and security. These machines, now soldiers in an unconsented war, are puppeteered to distribute further malware, carry out phishing tactics, and breach the sanctity of secure data.

The Trojan of Mac 

A recent exposé by the renowned cybersecurity firm Kaspersky has shone a spotlight on this burgeoning threat. The meticulous investigation conducted in April of this year unveiled a nefarious campaign, engineered to exploit the complacency among Mac users. This operation facilitates the sale of proxy access, linking previously unassailable devices to the infrastructure of cybercriminal networks.

This revelation cannot be overstated in its importance. It illustrates with disturbing clarity the evolution and sophistication of modern malware campaigns. The threat landscape is not stagnant but ever-shifting, adapting with both cunning and opportunity.

Kaspersky's diligence in dissecting this threat detected nearly three dozen popular applications, and tools relied upon by individuals and businesses alike for a multitude of tasks. These apps, now weaponised, span a gamut of functionalities - image editing and enhancement, video compression, data recovery, and network scanning among them. Each one, once a benign asset to productivity, is twisted into a lurking danger, imbued with the power to betray its user.   

The duplicity of the trojan is shrouded in mimicry; it disguises its malicious intent under the guise of 'WindowServer,' a legitimate system process intrinsic to the macOS. Its camouflage is reinforced by an innocuously named file, 'GoogleHelperUpdater.plist' — a moniker engineered to evade suspicion and blend seamlessly with benign processes affiliated with familiar applications.

Mode of Operation 

Its mode of operation, insidious in its stealth, utilises the Transmission Control Protocol(TCP) and User Datagram Protocol(UDP) networking protocols. This modus operandi allows it to masquerade as a benign proxy. The full scope of its potential commands, however, eludes our grasp, a testament to the shadowy domain from which these threats emerge.  

The reach of this trojan does not cease at the periphery of Mac's operating system; it harbours ambitions that transcend platforms. Windows and Android ecosystems, too, find themselves under the scrutiny of this burgeoning threat.

This chapter in the ongoing saga of cybersecurity is more than a cautionary tale; it is a clarion call for vigilance. The war being waged within the circuits and code of our devices underscores an inescapable truth: complacency is the ally of the cybercriminal.

Safety measures and best practices

It is imperative to safeguard the Mac system from harmful intruders, which are constantly evolving. Few measures can play a crucial role in protecting your data in your Mac systems.

• Refrain from Unlicensed Software - Refrain from accessing and downloading pirated software. Plenty of software serves as a decoy for malware which remains dormant till downloaded files are executed.  

• Use Trusted Source: Downloading files from legitimate and trusted sources can significantly reduce the threat of any unsolicited files or malware making its way into your Mac system. 

• Regular system updates: Regular updates to systems released by the company ensure the latest patches are installed in the system critical to combat and neutralize emerging threats. 

• General Awareness: keeping abreast of the latest developments in cyberspace plays a crucial role in avoiding new and emerging threats. It is crucial to keep pace with trends and be well-informed about new threats and ways to combat them. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, this silent conflict, though waged in whispers, echoes with repercussions that reverberate through every stratum of digital life. The cyber threats that dance in the shadows cast by our screens are not figments of paranoia, but very real specters hunting for vulnerabilities to exploit. Mac users, once confident in their platforms' defenses, must awaken to the new dawn of cybersecurity awareness.

The battlefield, while devoid of the visceral carnage of physical warfare, is replete with casualties of privacy and breaches of trust. The soldiers in this conflict are disguised as serviceable code, enacting their insidious agendas beneath a façade of normalcy. The victims eschew physical wounds for scars on their digital identities, enduring theft of information, and erosion of security.

As we course through the daunting terrain of digital life, it becomes imperative to heed the lessons of this unseen warfare. Shadows may lie unseen, but it is within their obscurity that the gravest dangers often lurk, a reminder to remain ever vigilant in the face of the invisible adversary.

References:

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/hackers-are-using-these-pirated-softwares-to-spread-malware-campaigns-on-mac-9054168/

Introduction

‍

Law grows by confronting its absences, it heals through its own gaps. States often find themselves navigating a shared frontier without a mutual guide or lines of law in an era of expanding digital boundaries and growing cyber damages. The United Nations General Assembly ratified the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime on December 24, 2024, and more than sixty governments were in attendance in the signing ceremony on 24th & 25th October this year, marking a moment of institutional regeneration and global commitment. 

‍

A new Lexicon for Global Order

The old liberal order is being strained by growing nationalism, economic fracturing, populism, and great-power competition as often emphasised in the works of scholars like G. John Iken berry and John Mearsheimer. Multilateral arrangements become more brittle in such circumstances. Therefore, the new cybercrimes convention represents not only a legal tool but also a resurgence of international promise, a significant win for collective governance in an uncertain time. It serves as a reminder that institutions can be rebuilt even after they have been damaged. 

‍

In Discussion: The Fabric of the Digital Polis

‍

The digital sphere has become a contentious area. On the one hand, the US and its allies support stakeholder governance, robust individual rights, and open data flows. On the other hand, nations like China and Russia describe a “post-liberal cyber order” based on state mediation, heavily regulated flows, and sovereignty. Instead of focusing on ideological dichotomies, India, which is positioned as both a rising power and a voice of the Global South, has offered a viewpoint based on supply-chain security, data localisation, and capacity creation. Thus, rather than being merely a regulation, the treaty arises from a framework of strategic recalibration. 

‍

What Changed & Why it Matters

‍

There have been regional cybercrime accords up to this point, such as the Budapest Convention. The goal of this new international convention, which is accessible to all UN members, is to standardise definitions, evidence sharing and investigation instruments. 72 states signed the Hanoi signature event in October, 2025, demonstrating an unparalleled level of scope and determination. In addition to establishing structures for cooperative investigations, extradition, and the sharing of electronic evidence, it requires signatories to criminalise acts such as fraud, unlawful access to systems, data interference, and online child exploitation. 

For the first time, a legally obligatory global architecture aims to harmonise cross-border evidence flows, mutual legal assistance, and national procedural laws. Cybercrime offers genuine promise for community defence at a time when it is no longer incidental but existential, attacks on hospitals, schools and infrastructure are now common, according to the Global Observatory.

‍

Holding the Line: India’s Deliberate Path in the Age of Cyber Multilateralism 

‍

India takes a contemplative rather than a reluctant stance towards the UN Cybercrime Treaty. Though it played an active role during the drafting sessions and lent its voice to the shaping of global cyber norms, New Delhi is yet to sign the convention. Subtle but intentional, the reluctance suggests a more comprehensive reflection, an evaluation of how international obligations correspond with domestic constitutional protections, especially the right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017). 

Prudence is the reason for this halt. Policy circles speculate that the government is still assessing the treaty’s consequences for national data protection, surveillance regimes, and territorial sovereignty. Officials have not provided explicit justifications for India’s refusal to join. India’s position has frequently been characterised by striking a careful balance between digital sovereignty and taking part in cooperative international regimes. In earlier negotiations, India had even proposed including clauses to penalise “offensive messages” on social media, echoing the erstwhile Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, but the suggestion found little international traction. 

Advocates for digital rights such as Raman Jit Singh Chima of Access Now have warned that ensuring that the treaty’s implementation upholds constitutional privacy principles may be necessary for India to eventually endorse it. He contends that the treaty’s wording might not entirely meet India’s legal requirements in the absence of such voluntary pledges. 

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres praised the agreement as “a powerful, legally binding instrument to strengthen our collective defences against “cybercrime” during its signing in Hanoi. The issue for India is to make sure that multilateral collaboration develops in accordance with constitutional values rather than to reject that vision. Therefore, the path forward is one of assertion rather than absence, careful march towards a cyber future that protects freedom and sovereignty. 

‍

Sources: 

• https://www.icwa.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=12244&lid=7470 
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/10/223-72-nations-un-first-cybercrime-treaty-india-abstains-privacy/ ‍
• https://therecord.media/us-declines-signing-cybercrime-treaty

Introduction 

The link between social media and misinformation is undeniable. Misinformation, particularly the kind that evokes emotion, spreads like wildfire on social media and has serious consequences, like undermining democratic processes, discrediting science, and promulgating hateful discourses which may incite physical violence. If left unchecked, misinformation propagated through social media has the potential to incite social disorder, as seen in countless ethnic clashes worldwide.  This is why social media platforms have been under growing pressure to combat misinformation and have been developing models such as fact-checking services and community notes to check its spread. This article explores the pros and cons of the models and evaluates their broader implications for online information integrity.

How the Models Work 

1. Third-Party Fact-Checking Model (formerly used by Meta) Meta initiated this program in 2016 after claims of extraterritorial election tampering through dis/misinformation on its platforms. It entered partnerships with third-party organizations like AFP and specialist sites like Lead Stories and PolitiFact, which are certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) for meeting neutrality, independence, and editorial quality standards. These fact-checkers identify misleading claims that go viral on platforms and publish verified articles on their websites, providing correct information. They also submit this to Meta through an interface, which may link the fact-checked article to the social media post that contains factually incorrect claims. The post then gets flagged for false or misleading content, and a link to the article appears under the post for users to refer to. This content will be demoted in the platform algorithm, though not removed entirely unless it violates Community Standards. However, in January 2025, Meta announced it was scrapping this program and beginning to test X’s Community Notes Model in the USA, before rolling it out in the rest of the world. It alleges that the independent fact-checking model is riddled with personal biases, lacks transparency in decision-making, and has evolved into a censoring tool. 
2. Community Notes Model ( Used by X and being tested by Meta): This model relies on crowdsourced contributors who can sign up for the program, write contextual notes on posts and rate the notes made by other users on X. The platform uses a bridging algorithm to display those notes publicly, which receive cross-ideological consensus from voters across the political spectrum. It does this by boosting those notes that receive support despite the political leaning of the voters, which it measures through their engagements with previous notes. The benefit of this system is that it is less likely for biases to creep into the flagging mechanism. Further, the process is relatively more transparent than an independent fact-checking mechanism since all Community Notes contributions are publicly available for inspection, and the ranking algorithm can be accessed by anyone, allowing for external evaluation of the system by anyone. 

CyberPeace Insights

Meta’s uptake of a crowdsourced model signals social media’s shift toward decentralized content moderation, giving users more influence in what gets flagged and why. However, the model’s reliance on diverse agreements can be a time-consuming process. A study (by Wirtschafter & Majumder, 2023) shows that only about 12.5 per cent of all submitted notes are seen by the public, making most misleading content go unchecked. Further, many notes on divisive issues like politics and elections may not see the light of day since reaching a consensus on such topics is hard. This means that many misleading posts may not be publicly flagged at all, thereby hindering risk mitigation efforts. This casts aspersions on the model’s ability to check the virality of posts which can have adverse societal impacts, especially on vulnerable communities. On the other hand, the fact-checking model suffers from a lack of transparency, which has damaged user trust and led to allegations of bias. 

Since both models have their advantages and disadvantages, the future of misinformation control will require a hybrid approach. Data accuracy and polarization through social media are issues bigger than an exclusive tool or model can effectively handle. Thus, platforms can combine expert validation with crowdsourced input to allow for accuracy, transparency, and scalability. 

Conclusion 

Meta’s shift to a crowdsourced model of fact-checking is likely to have bigger implications on public discourse since social media platforms hold immense power in terms of how their policies affect politics, the economy, and societal relations at large.  This change comes against the background of sweeping cost-cutting in the tech industry, political changes in the USA and abroad, and increasing attempts to make Big Tech platforms more accountable in jurisdictions like the EU and Australia, which are known for their welfare-oriented policies. These co-occurring contestations are likely to inform the direction the development of misinformation-countering tactics will take.  Until then, the crowdsourcing model is still in development, and its efficacy is yet to be seen, especially regarding polarizing topics. 

References 

• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/new-youtube-notes-feature-to-help-users-add-context-to-videos
• https://en-gb.facebook.com/business/help/315131736305613?id=673052479947730
• http://techxplore.com/news/2025-01-meta-fact.html 
• https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/ 
• https://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/about/introduction 
• https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/01/14/do-community-notes-work/?utm_source=chatgpt.com 
• https://www.techpolicy.press/community-notes-and-its-narrow-understanding-of-disinformation/ 
• https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/metas-shift-to-community-notes-model-proves-that-we-can-fix-big-problems-without-big-government/ 
• https://tsjournal.org/index.php/jots/article/view/139/57 

‍