A Corporate Response to Disinformation

In today’s information environment, multinational corporations face unprecedented risk. These risks are compounded by extreme geopolitical volatility, rapidly emerging technologies, and a lowering of the barriers to entry for the wide range of entities peddling disinformation.

In 2024, conflicts continued to rage in the Middle East and Ukraine, tensions abound in the Indo-Pacific region, and the U.S.-Mexico border remains a major flashpoint, providing nefarious actors with ample opportunities to push a litany of false narratives. In a survey from the World Economic Forum on the risks most likely to trigger a global crisis over the next two years, misinformation and disinformation ranked second.

Last July, the Paris 2024 Summer Olympics kicked off, with organizers anxious about a range of potential disinformation-related issues that could affect the games and its corporate sponsors. Globally, more than 4 billion people voted in the most significant election year in history, increasing the likelihood of foreign information manipulation and interference. Partisanship and extreme polarization overlap with identity politics and generational mistrust of institutions and news media to exacerbate societal strife. The misuse of artificial intelligence for malign purposes, including various forms of ‘Deep Fakes,’ remains a concern.

There were similar issues in the lead-up to the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Presidential elections. Following these pivotal moments, many so-called “counter disinformation” companies proliferated, flooding the market and jostling for position to offer services as the public and private sectors attempted to navigate a critical paradigm shift. However, as newly formed companies scrambled to corner the “counter-disinfo” market–offering a host of proposed solutions – from bot detection to narrative and network analysis – it fed a nascent “Disinformation Industrial Complex.” Seemingly overnight, a cottage industry sprouted up, promising to abate the asymmetry between fact and fiction. Accordingly, it became more difficult to discern meaningful differences between these companies and their respective offerings.

Led by Western democracies, there has been a sea change in the strategies for dealing with disinformation. A general shift is underway from monitoring the information environment to identifying risk to developing operational capabilities to counter foreign information manipulation and interference. Much of the research and government-civil society collaboration focuses on understanding malicious actors and categorizing influence operations. And, despite their claims, most companies operating in the “counter-disinfo” space offer glorified monitoring capabilities. Private sector organizations operating in today’s information environment require a practical, response-focused solution to evaluate risk, build resilience, and mitigate crises.

Most of the services and capabilities these “counter-disinfo” companies offer are best termed “upstream” capabilities, as they support disruption efforts, including education and digital literacy; enforcing trust and safety policies; litigation and sanctions; technical response; and exposure by investigative journalists and civil society organizations. These capabilities may be suitable for some (primarily governments) but provide few tangible benefits to an organization looking to build resilience and effectively mitigate a crisis.

As more “counter-disinfo” companies secure funding from venture capitalists, there is growing pressure for them to prioritize expansion over function. The private sector presents growth opportunities, especially with an uneducated buyer. Corporate executives have a responsibility to shareholders and stakeholders and need to understand the difference between disruption (upstream) and mitigation (downstream) and which “counter-disinfo” providers offer worthwhile solutions.

To be optimally positioned to succeed in the modern information environment, organizations require a three-pillared approach that includes utilizing innovative technology able to accurately assess the potential impact of an emergent situation, especially a crisis; communications expertise, so if a response is required, seasoned communicators can guide the response; and subject matter expertise on geopolitics and international relations (the “human in the loop”), to help navigate the complex global environment that shows few signs of stabilizing any time soon.

As modern disinformation rightly becomes an area of concern and focus, companies offering “counter-disinfo” services are often misaligned to the nature of the threat (especially in the midst of a crisis), leaving corporate executives lacking necessary real-time insights and advice on whether or not to act and how. Put bluntly, not all “counter-disinfo” services are created equal, and many of the “upstream” services offered will be little or no help in responding to a crisis like the war in Gaza. The differences between upstream and downstream capabilities and the importance of focusing on specific downstream capabilities, such as resilience building and various countermeasures, can mean the difference in effective mitigation.

Since disrupting the threat does not mean it is entirely extirpated, the effectiveness of the disruption effort is short-lived. The threat will metastasize again quickly, forming new networks and workarounds. In short, there will always be a baseline level of risk for organizations operating in the information environment, which inevitably necessitates a comprehensive and downstream response.

The reality is that worrying about whether fake accounts proliferate a coordinated attack against your brand misses a critical point – what is the potential impact on my business, and what is the appropriate response? As generative AI has demonstrated in recent months, synthetic content is just as believable as organic content in many instances. Corporate executives are responsible to shareholders and stakeholders tasked with protecting the bottom line. Paying for “upstream” capabilities is the non-tax beneficial equivalent to donating to the Center for Countering Online Hate or other nonprofits working to make the internet a safer place.

Ask yourself, in a moment of crisis, does it truly matter if the activity is inauthentic or organic, if it’s negatively impacting my business?

Falling victim to the ‘do something doctrine’ is easy because ‘doing something’ makes you feel active, and active feels effective; it’s better than nothing. But is it right? The critical question is not, “What should I do?” but rather, “If I decide to act, how will that impact my business?”

There is a pressing need to harness a suite of capabilities to combat disinformation, particularly amid ongoing global conflict and crisis. Having access to the right technology solutions and communications partner can help mitigate what could otherwise be a disastrous experience in dealing with the ubiquitous threat of disinformation.