#FactCheck: Viral AI image shown as AI -171 caught fire after collision

Executive Summary

‍
A video showing two men attempting to break into a house, only to be confronted by armed personnel who force them to kneel, is being widely shared on social media in the context of the upcoming West Bengal Assembly elections. The clip is being circulated with claims that it shows Central Reserve Police Force personnel intervening after workers of the Trinamool Congress allegedly tried to intimidate locals. However, an research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found that the claim is false. The viral video has no connection to India or the West Bengal elections and is being shared with a misleading narrative.

‍

Claim

‍

A Facebook user named Devashish Ajitkumar Bhattacharya shared the video on April 20, 2026, with the caption suggesting that TMC workers attempted to threaten people but were stopped by CRPF personnel deployed in West Bengal.

• Archive link: https://perma.cc/R42V-49FV 

‍

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. This led us to the same video uploaded on August 17, 2024, on the official YouTube channel of Bangladeshi news outlet Dhaka Post. The details accompanying the video confirmed that the incident took place in Bangladesh.

• Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDDeHuLoWc

‍

‍

Further research led us to a report published on August 17, 2024, by 24 Hours Khobor, which stated that the incident occurred in Faridpur, Bangladesh. According to the report, a clash broke out between two groups, following which the army intervened and arrested two individuals identified as Tutul Hossain and Dukhu Mia. Both were later sent to jail by a court.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral claim linking the video to the West Bengal Assembly elections is false. The footage does not show any incident involving CRPF personnel or political workers in India. Instead, it is from an unrelated घटना in Bangladesh that took place in 2024. The video has been taken out of context and is being circulated with a misleading narrative to create confusion around the ongoing election environment.

‍

Introduction

The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed a new legislation. On the 10th of November, 2023, a draft bill emerged, a parchment of governance seeking to sculpt the contours of the nation's broadcasting landscape. The Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, is not merely a legislative doctrine; it is a harbinger of change, an attestation to the storm of technology and the diversification of media in the age of the internet.     

The bill, slated to replace the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995, acknowledges the paradigm shifts that have occurred in the media ecosystem. The emergence of Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), over-the-top (OTT) platforms and other digital broadcasting services has rendered the previous legislation a relic, ill-suited to the dynamism of the current milieu. The draft bill, therefore, stands at the precipice of the future, inviting stakeholders and the vox populi to weigh in on its provisions, to shape the edifice of regulation that will govern the airwaves and the digital streams.

Defining the certain Clauses of the bill

Clause 1 (dd) - The Programme 

In the intricate tapestry of the bill's clauses, certain threads stand out, demanding scrutiny and careful consideration. Clause 1(dd), for instance, grapples with the definition of 'Programme,' a term that, in its current breadth, could ensnare the vast expanse of audio, visual, and written content transmitted through broadcasting networks. The implications are profound: content disseminated via YouTube or any website could fall within the ambit of this regulation, a prospect that raises questions about the scope of governmental oversight in the digital realm.

Clause 2(v) - The news and current affairs 

Clause 2(v) delves into the murky waters of 'news and current affairs programmes,' a definition that, as it stands, is a maelstrom of ambiguity. The phrases 'newly-received or noteworthy audio, visual or audio-visual programmes' and 'about recent events primarily of socio-political, economic or cultural nature' are a siren's call, luring the unwary into a vortex of subjective interpretation. The threat of potential abuse looms larger, threatening the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It is a clarion call for stakeholders to forge a definition that is objective and clear, one that is in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which upheld the sanctity of digital expression while advocating for responsible content creation.

Clause 2(y) Over the Top Broadcasting Services 

Clause 2(y) casts its gaze upon OTT broadcasting services, entities that operate in a realm distinct from traditional broadcasting. The one-to-many paradigm of broadcast media justifies a degree of governmental control, but OTT streaming is a more intimate affair, a one-on-one engagement with content on personal devices. The draft bill's attempt to umbrella OTT services under the broadcasting moniker is a conflation that could stifle the diversity and personalised nature of these platforms. It is a conundrum that other nations, such as Australia and Singapore, have approached with nuanced regulatory frameworks that recognise the unique characteristics of OTT services.

Clause 4(4) - Requirements for Broadcasters and Network Operators 

The bill's journey through the labyrinth of regulation is fraught with other challenges. The definition of 'Person' in Clause 2(z), the registration exemptions in Clause 4(4), the prohibition on state governments and political parties from engaging in broadcasting in Clause 6, and the powers of inspection and seizure in Clauses 30(2) and 31, all present a complex puzzle. Each clause, each sub-section, is a cog in the machinery of governance that must be calibrated with precision to balance the imperatives of regulation with the freedoms of expression and innovation.

Clause 27 - Advisory Council

The Broadcast Advisory Council, envisioned in Clause 27, is yet another crucible where the principles of impartiality and independence must be tempered. The composition of this council, the public consultations that inform its establishment, and the alignment with constitutional principles are all vital to its legitimacy and efficacy.

A Way Forward 

It is up to us, as participants in the democratic process and citizens, to interact with the bill's provisions as it makes its way through the halls of public discourse and legislative examination. To guarantee that the ultimate version of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, is a symbol of advancement and a charter that upholds our most valued liberties while welcoming the opportunities presented by the digital era, we must employ the instruments of study and discussion.

The draft bill is more than just a document in this turbulent time of transition; it is a story of India's dreams, a testament to its dedication to democracy, and a roadmap for its digital future. Therefore, let us take this duty with the seriousness it merits, as the choices we make today will have a lasting impact on the history of our country and the media environment for future generations.

References 

• https://scroll.in/article/1059881/why-indias-new-draft-broadcast-bill-has-raised-fears-of-censorship-and-press-suppression#:~:text=The%20bill%20extends%20the%20regulatory,regulation%20through%20content%20evaluation%20committees.
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1976200
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-broadcast-bill-may-also-cover-those-who-put-up-news-content-online-101701023054502.html

Artificial intelligence is growing at a rapid pace, with startups promising breakthroughs in industries and attracting billions in investment. Among these was Builder.ai, a London-based company founded in 2016 by an Indian entrepreneur. Once valued at over $1.5 billion, it was known for its game-changing platform that could let anyone build custom apps quickly and affordably with the help of AI.

Yet in 2025, Builder.ai collapsed dramatically, filing for bankruptcy across multiple countries and laying off nearly 80% of its workforce. What was once a celebrated unicorn has become a cautionary tale, exposing not only the risks of hype-driven growth in AI but also inflicting reputational damage on Indian founders in the global startup ecosystem.

The Rise: Big Promises, Big Investors

Builder.ai branded itself as a no-code/low-code app development platform, where its AI assistant “Natasha” would guide customers in creating apps without technical expertise. The pitch was simple and attractive: app development was made “as easy as ordering pizza.” The story resonated with major investors. Backed by SoftBank, Microsoft, and Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, Builder.ai raised more than $450 million. It scaled rapidly, positioning itself as one of Europe’s most promising AI startups.

The Cracks Appear

Behind the glamour, the first cracks appeared as early as 2019, when The Wall Street Journal reported that Builder.ai’s platform depended far more on human engineers than on the AI automation it advertised. In reality, the much-hyped AI assistant “Natasha” was often just “a guy instead”, i.e., skilled developers in India manually writing code behind the scenes on whose backs the company expanded aggressively. 

The real blow came from Builder.ai’s finances. The company was accused of inflating revenue figures by 300%, with alleged use of round-tripping tactics involving fake invoices that inflated financials.  While it publicly projected revenues of $220 million in 2024, its actual figure was closer to $55 million. When this reality surfaced, investor confidence was lost quickly, and the company’s liabilities ballooned to nearly $100 million, with less than $ 10 million in assets remaining. 

Collapse and Legal Scrutiny

By 2025, the company’s foundations had crumbled. The founder stepped down as CEO but retained the unusual title of “Chief Wizard.” Massive debts to AWS, Microsoft, and other partners mounted into the hundreds of millions. Assets were seized, and the company filed for bankruptcy in the U.S., UK, India, and the UAE.

For clients, the collapse meant abandoned projects. For employees, around 1,000 of them, it meant sudden unemployment. And for investors, it was a devastating loss. The Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York have since launched investigations into potential fraud and investor misrepresentation.

Reputational Damage: Impact on Indian Founders

Perhaps the most enduring consequence of Builder.ai’s downfall is the hit to the credibility of Indian founders on the global stage.

For years, Indian entrepreneurs have earned trust in global tech circles, with leaders heading companies from Google to Microsoft. Indian-led startups abroad were viewed as reliable, innovative, and growth-driven. Builder.ai’s collapse disrupts this narrative.

The allegations of inflated revenue, AI exaggeration, and questionable governance risk reinforcing skepticism among global investors regarding Indian organisational ethics. For other Indian founders seeking international capital, the road has now become tougher: stricter due diligence, harsher scrutiny of claims, and slower trust-building.

This reputational damage arrives at a critical time when India is positioning itself as a global hub for AI and leads the world in AI skill penetration. Rather than highlighting the strength of India’s entrepreneurial and talent ecosystem, the fall of Builder.ai has drawn attention to the risks of overpromising and underdelivering.

Conclusion

The fall of Builder.ai is more than the bankruptcy of one AI unicorn. It is a warning to companies against chasing hyper growth fueled by the riding of the AI wave. While the company’s downfall exposed flaws in governance and accountability, its deeper impact lies in how it dented trust. To drive AI and technology innovation, startups must move beyond flashy valuations and commit to authentic innovation, transparency, and financial integrity.

References

• https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/lending/moodys-early-warning-in-action-builder-ai.html#:~:text=Despite%20marketing%20itself%20as%20an,fake%20invoices%20that%20inflated%20financials. 
• https://today-innovation.webflow.io/unveiling-the-power-of-natasha-an-ai-assistant-of-builder-ai-to-revolutionize-app-generation 
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/builder-ais-shocking-450m-fall-170009323.html
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2108810 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/how-a-london-based-startups-artificial-ai-gambit-backfired-ws-l-19613692.htm# 

‍