Renee diResta, … chilling — a call for social media to be actively regulated by the US military, … New Knowledge, a firm offering corporations a new kind of service: using algorithms to bury social media scandals that would make them look bad.
This seems a very uncharitable interpretation. Is it deserved?
As the information war escalates, we believe more than ever that our responsibility is to provide an advanced, reliable disinformation solution to national security agencies, responsible leaders, and trusted brands.
The ambiguity between “solution to disinformation” and “solution in the form of disinformation” is delicious.
They say this is only to be used on manipulative or disinformation campaigns:
Based on data from our monitoring system, New Knowledge analysts provide the tools and support that companies need to disrupt manipulative online campaigns and maintain brand integrity. No system integration required. No private data collected.
I have no idea why what they are offering would be an asymmetric weapon. Nor do I think that ‘get very good at detecting and understanding manipulative social media campaigns’ is a strategy likely to lead to non-manipulative counter-strategies at a profit-maximizing corporation.
I can see why it might be better at disruption than creation, like many things. This might be one of the few places that makes me feel a little better.
Seems to be one of the least creepy things they are up to. They’ve been caught faking russian bot disinformation campaigns, engaged directly in disinformation campaigns themselves, and seem to clearly be engaged in attempting to sway mainstream political opinion into thinking this should be the new normal.
NYT has good coverage. When I merely google “new knowledge” two of the first page hits are wapo and BI, which whitewash them by only talking about the disinformation campaigns that they admitted to.
This seems a very uncharitable interpretation. Is it deserved?
I gotta love this quote from their website:
The ambiguity between “solution to disinformation” and “solution in the form of disinformation” is delicious.
They say this is only to be used on manipulative or disinformation campaigns:
I have no idea why what they are offering would be an asymmetric weapon. Nor do I think that ‘get very good at detecting and understanding manipulative social media campaigns’ is a strategy likely to lead to non-manipulative counter-strategies at a profit-maximizing corporation.
I can see why it might be better at disruption than creation, like many things. This might be one of the few places that makes me feel a little better.
Seems to be one of the least creepy things they are up to. They’ve been caught faking russian bot disinformation campaigns, engaged directly in disinformation campaigns themselves, and seem to clearly be engaged in attempting to sway mainstream political opinion into thinking this should be the new normal.
Source?
NYT has good coverage. When I merely google “new knowledge” two of the first page hits are wapo and BI, which whitewash them by only talking about the disinformation campaigns that they admitted to.