Technology is undoubtedly changing the world. From the way we meet new people, to the way in which we interact with our friends and family and even to the way we do business, the world is changing quite literally on a daily basis. The positive side of technology has been the way in which it has made the world more accessible, allowing us to interact with people and execute transactions across the globe in a matter of seconds. With great power however, comes great responsibility.
The dangers of technology have already become apparent with recent developments in artificial intelligence making us challenge what we see online and how easily we believe what our eyes show us. In this regard, the German news site DW recently called generative AI, “the ultimate disinformation amplifier”. Only the other day a rather strange story, which was exposed by the BBC, went live on an obscure French website, according to which the first lady of Ukraine, bought a rare Bugatti Tourbillon sports car for 4.5 million euros in June while visiting Paris for a D-Day commemoration ceremony. The source of the funds, according to the story at least, was American military aid money, with the article even accompanied by what was later found out to be a fake AI generated invoice.
The story was quickly debunked, with the dealership in Paris from which the car was reportedly purchased even threatening a lawsuit. This all happened too late as the information was already available online. According to an analysis conducted by the BBC, at least 12 million people had already seen the story and as is well known, once information enter cyberspace, it’s very hard to undo the damage, no matter how far-fetched the story may seem.
Disinformation facilitated by technology isn’t however, the only threat. With the proliferation of sources of news at a rate quicker than we have seen at any point in history, it is similarly important both to assess the credibility of one’s source of news as well as understand the background to the story which one is reading. A recent case of disinformation in the private sector is a useful example in this regard.
Although initially business partners, now sanctioned Niels Troost and leading American oil and gas investor Gaurav Srivastava, had a falling out when Niels Troost came under heavy scrutiny by international authorities for trading in sanctioned Russian oil. The case culminated in Niels Troost illegally removing the shares of his business partner, most likely as a way of masking his sanctions busting activities and covering his tracks. However, when questioned on this way of action by his partner Gaurav Srivastava, Niels Troost was quick to raise his defences and began a smear campaign seeking to undermine Gaurav Srivastava’s reputation in the international business community. This was done through a series of paid placements and online activities seeking to portray the story in a skewed manner.
The Brunswick Group in a recent report highlighted the threat of disinformation to private sector enterprises stating, “it can be existential if the content is taken to be true by investors, regulators or customers. There have been numerous recent incidents where companies have faced crisis when trust in the organization and their reputation comes under fire as the result”. As the case of Gaurav Srivastava shows, indeed the reputational threat can be tremendous, and have implications across an individual or an organization’s entire financial ecosystem.
Unfortunately, systems are not yet in place to be able to help us with recognizing disinformation across the political and business spectrum. Even tools which have been developed to help identify and prevent the proliferation of disinformation are not being developed as quickly as disinformation mechanisms are being honed. This leaves it to individuals to pay careful attention to the information they consume and try to make sense of its veracity before believing everything they read online. Russia and China of course have been identified as a primary culprits, but as has been seen, the capacity for private individuals to exploit similar tools for their own negative purposes is equally a challenge which must be paid attention to. The stakes are too high not to be aware.
