#FactCheck: Fake video falsely claims FM Sitharaman endorsed investment scheme

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/

‍

The Illusion of Digital Serenity

‍

In the age of technology, our email accounts have turned into overcrowded spaces, full of newsletters, special offers, and unwanted updates. To most, the presence of an "unsubscribe" link brings a minor feeling of empowerment, a chance to declutter and restore digital serenity. Yet behind this harmless-seeming tool lurks a developing cybersecurity threat. Recent research and expert discussions indicate that the "unsubscribe" button is being used by cybercriminals to carry out phishing campaigns, confirm active email accounts, and distribute malware. This new threat not only undermines individual users but also has wider implications for trust, behaviour, and governance in cyberspace.

‍

Exploiting User Behaviour

‍

The main challenge is the manipulation of user behaviour. Cyber thieves have learned to analyse typical user habits, most notably the instinctive process of unsubscribing from spam mail. Taking advantage of this, they now place criminal codes in emails that pose as real subscription programs. These codes may redirect traffic to fake websites that attempt to steal credentials, force the installation of malicious code, or merely count the click as verification that the recipient's email address is valid. Once confirmed, these addresses tend to be resold on the dark web or included in additional spam lists, further elevating the threat of subsequent attacks.

‍

A Social Engineering Trap

‍

This type of cyber deception is a prime example of social engineering, where the weakest link in the security chain ends up being the human factor. In the same way, misinformation campaigns take advantage of cognitive biases such as confirmation or familiarity, and these unsubscribe traps exploit user convenience and habits. The bait is so simple, and that is exactly what makes it work. Someone attempting to combat spam may unknowingly walk into a sophisticated cyber threat. Unlike phishing messages impersonating banks or government agencies, which tend to elicit suspicion, spoofed unsubscribe links are integrated into regular digital habits, making them more difficult to recognise and resist.

‍

Professional Disguise, Malicious Intent

‍

Technical analysis determines that most of these messages come from suspicious domains or spoofed versions of valid ones, like "@offers-zomato.ru" in place of the authentic "@zomato.com." The appearance of the email looks professional, complete with logos and styling copied from reputable businesses. But behind the HTML styling lies redirection code and obfuscated scripts with a very different agenda. At times, users are redirected to sites that mimic login pages or questionnaire forms, capturing sensitive information under the guise of email preference management.

‍

Beyond the Inbox: Broader Consequences

‍

The consequences of this attack go beyond the individual user. The compromise of a personal email account can be used to carry out more extensive spamming campaigns, engage in botnets, or even execute identity theft. Furthermore, the compromised devices may become entry points for ransomware attacks or espionage campaigns, particularly if the individual works within sensitive sectors such as finance, defence, or healthcare. In this context, what appears to be a personal lapse becomes a national security risk. This is why the issue posed by the weaponised unsubscribe button must be considered not just as a cybersecurity risk but also as a policy and public awareness issue.

‍

Platform Responsibility

‍

Platform responsibility is yet another important aspect. Email service providers such as Gmail, Outlook, and ProtonMail do have native unsubscribe capabilities, under the List-Unsubscribe header mechanism. These tools enable users to remove themselves from valid mailing lists safely without engaging with the original email content. Yet many users do not know about these safer options and instead resort to in-body unsubscribe links that are easier to find but risky. To that extent, email platforms need to do more not only to enhance backend security but also to steer user actions through simple interfaces, safety messages, and digital hygiene alerts.

‍

Education as a Defence

‍

Education plays a central role in mitigation. Just as cyber hygiene campaigns have been launched to teach users not to click on suspicious links or download unknown attachments, similar efforts are needed to highlight the risks associated with casual unsubscribing. Cybersecurity literacy must evolve to match changing threat patterns. Rather than only targeting clearly malicious activity, awareness campaigns should start tackling deceptive tactics that disguise themselves as beneficial, including unsubscribe traps or simulated customer support conversations. Partnerships between public and private institutions might be vital in helping with this by leveraging their resources for mass digital education.

‍

Practical Safeguards for Users

‍

Users are advised to always check the sender's domain before clicking any link, avoid unknown promotional emails, and hover over any link to preview its true destination. Rather than clicking "unsubscribe," users can simply mark such emails as spam or junk so that their email providers can automatically filter similar messages in the future. For enhanced security, embracing mechanisms such as mail client sandboxing, two-factor authentication (2FA) support, and alias email addresses for sign-ups can also help create layered defences. 

Policy and Regulatory Implications

‍

Policy implications are also significant. Governments and data protection regulators must study the increasing misuse of misleading unsubscribe hyperlinks under electronic communication and consent laws. In India, the new Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA), provides a legislative framework to counter such deceptive practices, especially under the principles of legitimate processing and purpose limitation. The law requires that the processing of data should be transparent and fair, a requirement that malicious emails obviously breach. Regulatory agencies like CERT-In can also release periodic notifications warning users against such trends as part of their charter to encourage secure digital practices.

The Trust Deficit

‍

The vulnerability also relates to broader issues of trust in digital infrastructure. When widely used tools such as an unsubscribe feature become points of exploitation, user trust in digital platforms erodes. Such a trust deficit can lead to generalised distrust of email systems, digital communication, and even legitimate marketing. Restoring and maintaining such trust demands a unified response that includes technical measures, user education, and regulatory action.

Conclusion: Inbox Hygiene with Caution

‍

The "unsubscribe button trap" is a parable of the modern age. It illustrates how mundane digital interactions, when manipulated, can do great damage not only to individual users but also to the larger ecosystem of online security and trust. As cyber-attacks grow increasingly psychologically advanced and behaviorally focused, our response must similarly become more sophisticated, interdisciplinary, and user-driven. Getting your inbox in order should never involve putting yourself in cyber danger. But as things stand, even that basic task requires caution, context, and clear thinking.

‍

Executive Summary

‍

A video circulating on social media claims that Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has passed away, with users attributing the claim to American sources. However, research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be false. Our research confirms that Mojtaba Khamenei is alive and in good health.

‍

Claim

‍

A Facebook user shared the viral video, claiming that Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had died.

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/2134091980774976
• https://ghostarchive.org/archive/X4gXZ 

‍
‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we conducted keyword searches on Google but found no credible media reports confirming his death. Further research led us to a report published on April 10, 2026, by ABP News. According to the report, amid discussions around a ceasefire, Mojtaba Khamenei issued a statement saying that Iran does not seek war with the United States or Israel, but as a nation, it must defend its rights.

• https://www.abplive.com/news/world/us-iran-war-iran-supreme-leader-mujtaba-khamenei-issued-written-message-amid-ceasefire-israel-hezbollah-lebanon-attack-3113300 

‍

‍

Additionally, the image used in the viral video was analyzed using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation. The results indicated a 99% probability that the image is AI-generated.
‍

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral claim is false and misleading. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Mojtaba Khamenei has died. On the contrary, recent verified reports confirm that he is alive and has even issued public statements on ongoing geopolitical developments. The widespread circulation of this claim appears to be driven by misinformation, amplified through social media without verification. The use of AI-generated visuals further adds to the confusion, making the content appear authentic at first glance.

‍