#FactCheck -AI-Generated Protest Video Falsely Linked to ‘Yadav Ji Ki Love Story’ Controversy

Executive Summary

‍

‍
A video showing a monkey allegedly saving the life of a sleeping child is rapidly going viral on social media. In the clip, a monkey can be seen picking up a child sleeping on a mat under a tree and moving the child away moments before a heavy tree branch falls at the same spot. Social media users are sharing the video as a “miracle of nature” and praising the emotional sensitivity and instincts of animals. However, research conducted by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the viral video is not real and was created using artificial intelligence tools.

‍

Claim

‍

The caption accompanying the viral post states:“In a shocking incident, a monkey was seen stepping in to save an innocent child sleeping under a tree from imminent danger. People nearby were stunned by the scene. It is being claimed that the monkey sensed the danger around the child and tried to protect him. The unusual incident has now gone viral on social media, with many saying that emotions and compassion are not limited to humans, animals can also understand feelings.”

The video has been widely shared across social media platforms

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYMvhRPTcCA/
• https://archive.ph/https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYMvhRPTcCA/ 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the authenticity of the video, we extracted keyframes from the clip and conducted a reverse image search. During the research, we found the same video uploaded on May 8, 2026, on an Instagram page named Instagram user “mojilo_vandro.” The caption of the original upload did not provide any factual context and presented the video in a dramatic, miracle-like manner.

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYERhX9NVjd/ 

‍

‍

We further examined the Instagram account and found that it regularly posts several AI-generated videos featuring monkeys performing heroic or emotional acts. Importantly, the account owner has also identified themselves as an “AI video creator” in the bio section.

‍

‍

To further analyze the clip, we tested it using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. The tool’s analysis classified the viral video as 85.6% likely to be AI-generated. We also checked the clip using another AI detection platform, Deepfake-o-meter. Its AVSRDD (2025) detection model flagged the video as potentially AI-generated with a 100% confidence score.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The evidence gathered during our research clearly shows that the viral video claiming to show a monkey saving a sleeping child from a falling tree branch is not authentic. The clip was created using AI-generated visual techniques and does not depict a real incident.

‍

In a recent ruling, a U.S. federal judge sided with Meta in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors who alleged that their works were illegally used to train Meta’s LLaMA language model. While this seems like a significant legal victory for the tech giant, it may not be so. Rather, this is a good case study for creators in the USA to refine their legal strategies and for policymakers worldwide to act quickly to shape the rules of engagement between AI and intellectual property.

The Case: Meta vs. Authors

In Kadrey v. Meta, the plaintiffs alleged that Meta trained its LLaMA models on pirated copies of their books, violating copyright law. However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the authors failed to prove two critical things: that their copyrighted works had been used in a way that harmed their market and that such use was not “transformative.” In fact, the judge ruled that converting text into numerical representations to train an AI was sufficiently transformative under the U.S. fair use doctrine. He also noted that the authors’ failure to demonstrate economic harm undermined their claims. Importantly, he clarified that this ruling does not mean that all AI training data usage is lawful, only that the plaintiffs didn’t make a strong enough case.

Meta even admitted that some data was sourced from pirate sites like LibGen, but the Judge still found that fair use could apply because the usage was transformative and non-exploitative.

A Tenuous Win

Chhabria’s decision emphasised that this is not a blanket endorsement of using copyrighted content in AI training. The judgment leaned heavily on the procedural weakness of the case and not necessarily on the inherent legality of Meta’s practices.

Policy experts are warning that U.S. courts are currently interpreting AI training as fair use in narrow cases, but the rulings may not set the strongest judicial precedent. The application of law could change with clearer evidence of commercial harm or a more direct use of content. 

Moreover, the ruling does not address whether authors or publishers should have the right to opt out of AI model training, a concern that is gaining momentum globally.

Implications for India

The case highlights a glaring gap in India’s copyright regime: it is outdated. Since most AI companies are located in the U.S., courts have had the opportunity to examine copyright in the context of AI-generated content. India has yet to start. Recently, news agency ANI filed a case alleging copyright infringement against OpenAI for training on its copyrighted material. However, the case is only at an interim stage. The final outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the legality of these language models being able to use copyrighted material for training.

Considering that India aims to develop “state-of-the-art foundational AI models trained on Indian datasets” under the IndiaAI Mission, the lack of clear legal guidance on what constitutes fair dealing when using copyrighted material for AI training is a significant gap.  

Thus, key points of consideration for policymakers include: 

• Need for Fair Dealing Clarity: India’s fair-dealing provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, are narrower than U.S. fair use. The doctrine may have to be reviewed to strike a balance between this law and the requirement of diverse datasets to develop foundational models rooted in Indian contexts. A parallel concern regarding data privacy also arises. 
• Push for Opt-Out or Licensing Mechanisms: India should consider whether to introduce a framework that requires companies to license training data or provide an opt-out system for creators, especially given the volume of Indian content being scraped by global AI systems.
• Digital Public Infrastructure for AI: India’s policymakers could take this opportunity to invest in public datasets, especially in regional languages, that are both high quality and legally safe for AI training.
• Protecting Local Creators: India needs to ensure that its authors, filmmakers, educators and journalists are protected from having their work repurposed without compensation, since power asymmetries between Big Tech and local creators can lead to exploitation of the latter.

Conclusion

The ruling in Meta’s favour is just one win for the developer. The real questions about consent, compensation and creative control remain unanswered. Meanwhile, the lesson for India is urgent: it needs AI policies that balance innovation with creator rights and provide legal certainty and ethical safeguards as it accelerates its AI ecosystem. Further, as global tech firms race ahead, India must not remain a passive data source; it must set the terms of its digital future. This will help the country move a step closer to achieving its goal of building sovereign AI capacity and becoming a hub for digital innovation.

References

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors 
• https://www.wired.com/story/meta-scores-victory-ai-copyright-case/ 
• https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/meta-llama-ai-copyright-ruling.html 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348352/what-is-fair-use-of-copyright-doctrine 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113095#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20pillars,models%20trained%20on%20Indian%20datasets. ‍
• https://www.ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ani-vs-openai-delhi-high-court-seeks-responses-on-copyright-infringement-charges-against-chatgpt

Introduction

Bumble’s launch of its ‘Opening Move’ feature has sparked a new narrative on safety and privacy within the digital dating sphere and has garnered mixed reactions from users. It was launched against the backdrop of women stating that the ‘message first’ policy of Bumble was proving to be tedious. Addressing the large-scale review, Bumble launched its ‘Opening Move’ feature, whereby users can either craft or select from pre-set questions which potential matches may choose to answer to start the conversation at first glance. These questions are a segue into meaningful and insightful conversation from the get-go and overstep the traditional effort to start engaging chats between matched users. This feature is an optional feature that users may enable and as such does not prevent a user from exercising the autonomy previously in place.

Innovative Approach to Conversation Starters

Many users consider this feature as innovative; not only does it act as a catalyst for fluid conversation but also cultivates insightful dialogue, fostering meaningful interactions that are devoid of the constraint of superficial small talk. The ‘Opening Moves’ feature may also be aligned with unique scientific research indicating that individuals form their initial attractions within 3-seconds of intimate interaction, thereby proving to be a catalyst to the decision-making process of an individual in the attraction time frame. 

Organizational Benefits and Data Insights

From an organisational standpoint, the feature is a unique solution towards localisation challenges faced by apps; the option of writing a personalised ‘Opening Move’ implies setting prompts that are culturally relevant and appropriate in a specific area. Moreover, it is anticipated that Bumble may enhance and improve user experience within the platform through data analysis. Data from responses to an ‘Opening Move’ may provide valuable insights into user preferences and patterns by analysing which pre-set prompts garner more responses over others and how often is a user-written ‘Opening Move’ successful in obtaining a response in comparison with Bumble’s pre-set prompts. A quick glance at Bumble’s privacy policy[1] shows that data storing and transferring of chats between users are not shared with third parties, further safeguarding personal privacy. However,  Bumble does use the chat data for its own internal purposes after removing personally identifiable information from chats. The manner of such review and removal of data has not been specified, which may raise challenges depending upon whether the reviewer is a human or an algorithm.

However, some users perceive the feature as counterproductive to the company’s principle of ‘women make the first move’. While Bumble aims to market the feature as a neutral ground for matched users based on the exercise of choice, users see it as a step back into the heteronormative gender expectations that most dating apps conform to, putting the onus of the ‘first move’ on men. Many male users have complained that the feature acts as a catalyst for men to opt out of the dating app and would most likely refrain from interacting with profiles enabled with the ‘Opening Move’ feature, since the pressure to answer in a creative manner is disproportionate with the likelihood their response actually being entertained.[2] Coupled with the female users terming the original protocol as ‘too much effort’, the preset questions of the ‘Opening Move’ feature may actively invite users to categorise potential matches according to arbitrary questions that undermine real-life experiences, perspectives and backgrounds of each individual.[3]

Additionally, complications are likely to arise when a notorious user sets a question that indirectly gleans personal or sensitive, identifiable information. The individual responding may be bullied or be subjected to hateful slurs when they respond to such carefully crafted conversation prompts.

Safety and Privacy Concerns

On the corollary, the appearance of choice may translate into more challenges for women on the platform. The feature may spark an increase in the number of unsolicited, undesirable messages and images from a potential match. The most vulnerable groups at present remain individuals who identify as females and other sexual minorities.[4] At present, there appears to be no mechanism in place to proactively monitor the content of responses, relying instead on user reporting. This approach may prove to be impractical given the potential volume of objectionable messages, necessitating a more efficient solution to address this issue. It is to be noted that in spite of a user reporting, the current redressal systems of online platforms remain lax, largely inadequate and demonstrate ineffectiveness in addressing user concerns or grievances. This lack of proactiveness is violative of the right to redressal provided under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. It is thought that the feature may actually take away user autonomy that Bumble originally aimed to grant since Individuals who identify as introverted, shy, soft-spoken, or non-assertive may refrain from reporting harassing messages altogether, potentially due to discomfort or reluctance to engage in confrontation. Resultantly, it is anticipated that there would be a sharp uptake in cases pertaining to cyberbullying, harassment and hate speech (especially vulgar communications) towards both the user and the potential match. 

From an Indian legal perspective, dating apps have to adhere to the Information Technology Act, 2000 [5], the Information Technology (Intermediary and Digital Media Ethics) Rules 2021 [6] and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, that regulates a person’s digital privacy and set standards on the kind of content an intermediary may host. An obligation is cast upon an intermediary to uprise its users on what content is not allowed on its platform in addition to mandating intimation of the user’s digital rights. The lack of automated checks, as mentioned above, is likely to make Bumble non-compliant with the ethical guidelines. 

The optional nature of the ‘Opening Move’ grants users some autonomy. However, some technical updates may enhance the user experience of this feature. Technologies like AI are an effective aid in behavioural and predictive analysis. An upgraded ‘matching’ algorithm can analyse the number of un-matches a profile receives, thereby identifying and flagging a profile having multiple lapsed matches. Additionally, the design interface of the application bearing a filter option to filter out flagged profiles would enable a user to be cautious while navigating through the matches. Another possible method of weeding out notorious profiles is by deploying a peer-review system of profiles whereby a user has a singular check-box that enables them to flag a profile. Such a checkbox would ideally be devoid of any option for writing personal comments and would bear a check box stating whether the profile is most or least likely to bully/harass. This would ensure that a binary, precise response is recorded and any coloured remarks are avoided. [7]

Governance and Monitoring Mechanisms

From a governance point of view, a monitoring mechanism on the manner of crafting questions is critical. Systems should be designed to detect certain words/sentences and a specific manner of framing sentences to disallow questions contrary to the national legal framework. An onscreen notification having instructions on generally acceptable manner of conversations as a reminder to users to maintain cyber hygiene while conversing is also proposed as a mandated requirement for platforms. The notification/notice may also include guidelines on what information is safe to share in order to safeguard user privacy. Lastly, a revised privacy policy should establish the legal basis for processing responses to ‘Opening Moves’, thereby bringing it in compliance with national legislations such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Conclusion

Bumble's 'Opening Move' feature marks the company’s ‘statement’ step to address user concerns regarding initiating conversations on the platform. While it has been praised for fostering more meaningful interactions, it also raises not only ethical concerns but also concerns over user safety. While the 'Opening Move' feature can potentially enhance user experience, its success is largely dependent on Bumble's ability to effectively navigate the complex issues associated with this feature. A more robust monitoring mechanism that utilises newer technology is critical to address user concerns and to ensure compliance with national laws on data privacy.

Endnotes:

• [1] Bumble’s privacy policy https://bumble.com/en-us/privacy  
• [2] Discussion thread, r/bumble, Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Bumble/comments/1cgrs0d/women_on_bumble_no_longer_have_to_make_the_first/?share_id=idm6DK7e0lgkD7ZQ2TiTq&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1&rdt=65068 
• [3] Mcrea-Hedley, Olivia, “Love on the Apps: When did Dating Become so Political?”, 8 February 2024 https://www.service95.com/the-politics-of-dating-apps/ 
• [4] Gewirtz-Meydan, A., Volman-Pampanel, D., Opuda, E., & Tarshish, N. (2024). ‘Dating Apps: A New Emerging Platform for Sexual Harassment? A Scoping Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 752-763. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162969 
• [5]  Information Technology Act, 2000 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf 
• [6]  Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics) Rules 2021 https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology%20%28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%29-.pdf 
• [7]  Date Confidently: Engaging Features in a Dating App (Use Cases), Consaguous, 10 July 2023 https://www.consagous.co/blog/date-confidently-engaging-features-in-a-dating-app-use-cases  

‍