#Factcheck-Viral Image of Men Riding an Elephant Next to a Tiger in Bihar is Misleading
Executive Summary:
A post on X (formerly Twitter) featuring an image that has been widely shared with misleading captions, claiming to show men riding an elephant next to a tiger in Bihar, India. This post has sparked both fascination and skepticism on social media. However, our investigation has revealed that the image is misleading. It is not a recent photograph; rather, it is a photo of an incident from 2011. Always verify claims before sharing.
Claims:
An image purporting to depict men riding an elephant next to a tiger in Bihar has gone viral, implying that this astonishing event truly took place.
Fact Check:
After investigation of the viral image using Reverse Image Search shows that it comes from an older video. The footage shows a tiger that was shot after it became a man-eater by forest guard. The tiger killed six people and caused panic in local villages in the Ramnagar division of Uttarakhand in January, 2011.
Before sharing viral posts, take a brief moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly and it’s far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
Conclusion:
The claim that men rode an elephant alongside a tiger in Bihar is false. The photo presented as recent actually originates from the past and does not depict a current event. Social media users should exercise caution and verify sensational claims before sharing them.
- Claim: The video shows people casually interacting with a tiger in Bihar
- Claimed On:Instagram and X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
A video is going viral on social media claiming to show family members mourning the death of Iddo Netanyahu, brother of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, an research by the CyberPeace found that the claim being shared with the video is false. The video has been available on the internet since 2024. According to available information, it shows the funeral of an Israeli soldier who was killed in an attack in the Jabalia area of northern Gaza.Moreover, no credible news reports were found confirming the death of Iddo Netanyahu.
Claim:
An Instagram user shared the viral video with an English caption stating, “Family members are crying after the death of Iddo Netanyahu was confirmed.”
Fact Check:
During the investigation, we found the original video on an X (formerly Twitter) account named Warfare Analysis. The video was posted on October 12, 2024, confirming that it predates the recent Iran-Israel conflict. Notably, the “Warfare Analysis” logo is also visible in the viral video. According to the caption, the footage shows the funeral of Israeli soldier Netanel Hershkovit, who was killed on October 11, 2024, in an attack by Al-Qassam in Jabalia, northern Gaza.
A report published by VIN News on October 12, 2024, also covered the funeral of Netanel Hershkovit and included statements from his family members.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the claim shared with the video is false. The video has been online since 2024 and shows the funeral of an Israeli soldier killed in northern Gaza. Additionally, no credible reports confirm the death of Iddo Netanyahu.
Executive Summary
An image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely circulated on social media. The picture is being shared with the claim that during an election campaign in Assam, a full-fledged shooting set was arranged in a tea garden where Modi interacted with women workers, complete with cameras, microphones, lights, and a director-led production team. However, research by the CyberPeace has found the claim to be false. Our research reveals that the viral image is AI-generated and is being shared with a misleading narrative.
Claim
An Instagram user shared the viral image with the caption suggesting that such a large-scale “shoot” setup had been arranged and questioned the cost involved.
Post link:
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we conducted a keyword-based search on Google. However, we did not find any credible media reports supporting the claim that such a shooting setup was arranged during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Assam. Upon closely examining the viral image, we noticed several visual inconsistencies that raised suspicion about it being artificially generated. To confirm this, we analyzed the image using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which indicated that the image is approximately 99% AI-generated.
To further validate the findings, we also tested the image using another AI detection tool, NoteGPT, which similarly classified the image as 99% AI-generated.
For context, ahead of the 2026 Assam Assembly elections, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been on a campaign visit to the state. According to a report by DD News, he visited a tea garden in Dibrugarh, where he interacted with women workers and even plucked tea leaves himself.
Conclusion
Our research clearly establishes that the viral image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not authentic and has been digitally created using AI tools. There is no evidence to support the claim that a staged shooting setup involving cameras, lights, and a production crew was arranged during his visit. The image is being circulated with a misleading narrative to create a false impression. This case highlights how AI-generated visuals can be used to distort real events and spread misinformation.
Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.
The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.
The Emergence of the Digital Menace
Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.
The Gap in Law and Institution
None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.
II. Explanation of the Amendments
The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation.
A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.
Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:
The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.
Expansion of Legal Scope:
Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.
B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements
Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:
The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.
C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content
The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down.
- The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:
- Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
- It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
- It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary.
- The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.
D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities
The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps.
Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users.
Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.
Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.
The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance.
An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.
III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework
- Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.
The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability.
- Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge
Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.
- Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance
The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.
- Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation
The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.
IV. Conclusion
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.
V. References
2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide
