#FactCheck: Debunking the Edited Image Claim of PM Modi with Hafiz Saeed
Executive Summary:
A photoshopped image circulating online suggests Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with militant leader Hafiz Saeed. The actual photograph features PM Modi greeting former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif during a surprise diplomatic stopover in Lahore on December 25, 2015.
The Claim:
A widely shared image on social media purportedly shows PM Modi meeting Hafiz Saeed, a declared terrorist. The claim implies Modi is hostile towards India or aligned with terrorists.
Fact Check:
On our research and reverse image search we found that the Press Information Bureau (PIB) had tweeted about the visit on 25 December 2015, noting that PM Narendra Modi was warmly welcomed by then-Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif in Lahore. The tweet included several images from various angles of the original meeting between Modi and Sharif. On the same day, PM Modi also posted a tweet stating he had spoken with Nawaz Sharif and extended birthday wishes. Additionally, no credible reports of any meeting between Modi and Hafiz Saeed, further validating that the viral image is digitally altered.
In our further research we found an identical photo, with former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in place of Hafiz Saeed. This post was shared by Hindustan Times on X on 26 December 2015, pointing to the possibility that the viral image has been manipulated.
Conclusion:
The viral image claiming to show PM Modi with Hafiz Saeed is digitally manipulated. A reverse image search and official posts from the PIB and PM Modi confirm the original photo was taken during Modi’s visit to Lahore in December 2015, where he met Nawaz Sharif. No credible source supports any meeting between Modi and Hafiz Saeed, clearly proving the image is fake.
- Claim: Debunking the Edited Image Claim of PM Modi with Hafiz Saeed
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media allegedly shows an Indian Army Air Defence JCO, identified as “Anurag Thakur,” criticising the Central government and announcing his resignation. In the clip, the individual is purportedly heard expressing disappointment with the government’s support for soldiers and claiming heavy casualties within his unit. However, an investigation by the CyberPeace Research Wing has found the claim to be false and the video manipulated.
Claim:
The viral post alleges that an Indian Army Air Defence JCO criticised the Centre and resigned, citing lack of support for soldiers and unacknowledged casualties.
Fact Check:
A keyword search using terms such as “Indian Army Air Defence JCO,” “Anurag Thakur,” and “resignation” did not yield any credible news reports supporting the claim. A reverse image search of the viral clip led to an original video posted by ANI on April 22, 2026. The ANI watermark is also visible in the viral footage, confirming that the clip has been sourced from this original video.
In the authentic version, the same personnel appears in the same setting, but he is speaking in Hindi about operations against adversary drones during “Operation Sindoor” in May 2025. He explains how his unit detected and neutralised multiple drones, successfully safeguarding a critical installation. Importantly, the original video does not identify the individual as Anurag Thakur, nor does it contain any reference to resignation, casualties, or criticism of the government.
Further technical analysis using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation indicated that the audio in the viral clip has an 86 percent likelihood of being artificially generated.
Conclusion:
The viral video has been altered with fabricated audio to falsely claim that an Indian Army officer criticised the government and resigned. The claim is baseless and the clip is a clear case of a deepfake created to mislead viewers.
When your digital identity becomes raw material for someone else’s imagination, who really owns your face?
On July 7, 2026, Meta launched Muse Image, the first standalone image-generation model developed by Meta Superintelligence Labs under Alexandr Wang. Positioned as a competitor to OpenAI’s GPT Images 2.0 and Google’s Nano Banana 2, the launch highlights Meta’s growing ambitions in the generative AI race. Yet beneath the technical advancements lies a far more consequential question than what AI can create, but about who gets to decide what it creates with?
That ambition of generative AI comes with a cost, and one of Muse Image's most controversial design choices is its integration with Instagram, which allows public profiles to become creative references for AI-generated images. Users can tag public Instagram accounts in prompts and generate AI images inspired by that person’s publicly available content. Meta presents this as a new form of personalization and creativity. However, critics argue that the feature transforms years of personal photographs into a massive library of AI-ready human identities, where non-action automatically becomes permission. The concern is not just that AI can generate realistic images. The concern is that consent itself is being manipulated in a way.
The opt-out system most users never asked for
Muse Image operates through Meta AI’s integration with Instagram. A user can reference a public Instagram profile in a prompt, allowing the system to generate images influenced by that person’s existing content and likeness. Under the default arrangement, the person whose profile is being referenced may not necessarily approve the generation beforehand.
Meta does provide users with controls to restrict this functionality. The setting exists under Instagram’s “Sharing and reuse” options, where users can disable permissions related to the use of their posts and reels with Meta’s AI features. But the larger issue is the direction in which responsibility flows. Instead of requiring active permission before someone’s likeness becomes available for AI-generated content, the burden is placed on individuals to discover the feature, understand the implications, locate the setting, and disable it. In a digital environment where users already navigate endless privacy menus, cookie banners, and terms of service agreements, expecting meaningful awareness from billions of people becomes unrealistic. Consent that depends on finding the exit door is very different from consent that begins with a choice.
A guide for opting-out
One way of opting out is to have a private account. As verified, Meta does not encroach on private accounts as of now for image-generation.
But if you have a public account, here are the steps that can be followed to secure yourself from Meta’s Muse automatic consent:
On your profile, tap the menu bar which is on the top right (≡), you will enter into ‘setting and activity’, after that you will see an option of ‘sharing and refuse’ and then disable the options under it, namely- Allow people to reuse your content on Instagram and with AI features at Meta. Notably, the changes made will be only for your future content not the already existing content on your public profile.
Why “public” does not mean “available for anything”
The debate around Muse Image highlights a deeper misunderstanding at the center of modern digital platforms: the difference between visibility and reuse. When someone makes an Instagram account public, they are generally making a decision about the audience. They are allowing others to view their photos, discover their profile, or engage with their content. That decision was never traditionally understood as permission for their face, appearance, personal moments, or identity markers to become reusable components in AI-generated media. A photograph posted online has context. It represents a specific moment, purpose, relationship, or expression. Generative AI changes that equation because it separates identity from context. A person’s likeness can be extracted from its original context and placed into entirely new situations created by someone else. Muse Image does not just expand who can see your content. It expands what can be done with it. That distinction is what scales the problem for every public user on the app. The privacy implications become significantly larger because of Instagram’s global reach. With billions of users worldwide, even a small percentage of affected public accounts represents an enormous number of people. Many public profiles do not belong to celebrities, influencers, or creators who intentionally operate as public brands. They belong to students, professionals, small businesses, artists, photographers, and everyday users who simply chose visibility within a social network.
For years, platforms encouraged people to share more, build audiences, and maintain a public digital presence. Now, the meaning of that public presence is changing after the fact. The question becomes: should a decision made years ago to share photos socially automatically extend into permission for generative AI systems built years later?
There is also a catch while opting out. Changing these settings only protects your content from being used in future AI generations, it does not undo anything that has already happened. Any AI images previously created using your public profile will remain unaffected. Essentially, the opt-out works as a shield for what comes next, not a reset button for what has already been created.
A familiar pattern in the AI era
Muse Image reflects a broader pattern emerging across the technology industry. New AI capabilities are introduced at massive scale, participation becomes the default, and individual control arrives afterward through settings that many users may never find. The same debates that once surrounded targeted advertising, data collection, and algorithmic profiling are now moving into a far more personal territory, the human identity itself. Faces are not ordinary data points. Unlike a username, password, or preference setting, a person cannot simply replace their appearance once it has been widely replicated.
Technical solutions such as AI watermarking and content labels may help identify generated material, but they address authenticity after creation. They do not answer the question of whether the generation should have happened in the first place.
Innovation cannot replace consent
The technological progress behind Muse Image is significant. Better image generation, improved text rendering, and more personalized creative tools represent genuine advances in artificial intelligence. But capability alone cannot determine acceptability. The future of AI will not only depend on how realistic images become, how powerful models become, or how quickly companies can deploy new features. It will also depend on whether people feel they have meaningful control over their own digital identities. Muse Image is therefore more than another AI product launch. It represents a defining question for the next phase of the internet: Will our online presence remain something we control, or will it become something others can generate?
Executive Summary:
Amid the ongoing tensions and conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, an image of a heavily damaged industrial facility is circulating widely on social media. Several users are sharing the picture claiming that it shows an Iranian water treatment or desalination plant destroyed in a US–Israel attack. Some media reports have also used the same image while reporting on the alleged attack on a freshwater desalination plant in Iran.
However, a research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is misleading. The viral image is not from Iran. It actually shows the aftermath of a drone attack on a warehouse belonging to a US company in Basra, Iraq.
Claim
X user “Shashank Shekhar Jha” shared the image on March 8, 2026, claiming that a freshwater desalination plant in Qeshm, Iran, had been destroyed.
Fact check
To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the search, we found a report published on March 7, 2026, on the website of Asian News International (ANI). The report stated that Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi condemned a US attack on a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island, calling it a “blatant and desperate crime.”
The report used the same viral image; however, the caption clearly mentioned that it was a representational image credited to Reuters.
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/middle-east/blatant-and-desperate-crime-irans-fm-condemns-us-attack-on-qeshms-freshwater-desalination-plant-warns-of-grave-consequences20260307212645/
To further confirm the claim, we checked the official X account of Seyed Abbas Araghchi. In a post on March 7, he condemned the alleged attack on the desalination plant in Qeshm and stated that the strike had disrupted water supply to around 30 villages. However, the post did not include any image of the incident.
Conclusion
The viral image being shared as evidence of a US–Israel attack on Iran’s water treatment plant is misleading. The photo actually shows the aftermath of a drone strike on a warehouse belonging to a US company in Basra, Iraq, and has been wrongly linked to the situation in Iran.
