top of page

Disinformation Intelligence: Safeguarding Democracy and Society

How to Expose Coordinated Networks in Politics, Elections, and Public Debate


Fake accounts coordinated efforts to discredit Scholz’s leadership and the SPD, amplifying criticism while steering the conversation toward the AfD. Many of these fake accounts repeatedly claimed that the AfD was the only party Germans could trust.
Fake accounts coordinated efforts to discredit Scholz’s leadership and the SPD, amplifying criticism while steering the conversation toward the AfD.

What is Disinformation Intelligence?


TL;DR: It uncovers coordinated bot networks and fake accounts manipulating democratic discourse, elections, and public trust. #what


Evidence:

  • 1,000 fake accounts influenced Germany’s 2025 federal election, boosting the AfD and discrediting its rivals.

  • A mass campaign against Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf amplified abortion narratives until her judicial nomination collapsed.

  • Many fake accounts are “long-term assets” — 47% had been active for over a year before the election.


Who needs this service?


TL;DR: Governments, NGOs, journalists, and security teams must separate authentic civic debate from manufactured manipulation. #who


Evidence:

  • Election commissions & regulators: monitor foreign interference and bot farms.

  • Law enforcement & OSINT: track extremist narratives and protest coordination.

  • Investigative journalists & NGOs: reveal hidden actors driving online outrage.



What are the hallmarks of a disinformation network?


TL;DR: Even when posts look authentic, coordinated patterns reveal manipulation. #criteria


Evidence:

  1. Recently created accounts (13% of German election bots <30 days old).

  2. Recycled avatars & AI-generated images.

  3. Identical bursts of content.

  4. Narrative hijacking — twisting hashtags (#AfD, #RemigrationJETZT) into dominance.

Exploiting polarising issues (abortion, migration, corruption).



Why does this matter for democracy and public safety?


TL;DR: Manipulated narratives can shift elections, block judicial nominations, and erode trust in institutions. #why


Evidence:

  • German election 2025: fake engagement manufactured AfD popularity, misleading undecided voters.

  • Brosius-Gersdorf case: coordinated outrage directly derailed a constitutional court nomination.

  • Long-term fake accounts show strategic investment in undermining trust.



Build vs. Buy: Can institutions monitor this internally?


TL;DR: In-house monitoring is too slow; specialized platforms detect manipulation in real-time. #build


Evidence:

  • Cross-platform scanning is rarely feasible internally.

  • SaaS/API solutions detect fake accounts, coordinated clusters, and AI-generated content.

  • Time to value: alerts in hours vs. months.



What does a 90-day rollout look like? {#rollout}


TL;DR: Monitor → Stress-test → Embed playbooks. #rollout


Evidence:

  • 0–30 days: integrate monitoring dashboards; set thresholds.

  • 31–60 days: simulate disinformation scenarios (elections, court nominations, protests).

  • 61–90 days: codify playbooks for election boards, institutions, and media partners.



FAQ

  1. Are state actors always involved? → Not always, but German patterns match known networks.

  2. Which platforms are most exploited? → X, TikTok, and fringe forums.

  3. Does it replace analysts? → No, it augments them with faster insights.

  4. Can NGOs and journalists use it? → Yes, to reveal who is behind campaigns.

  5. Is all controversy fake? → No, but fake accounts amplify divisive issues until they dominate.



👉 Book a demo to see how we expose disinformation networks before they destabilise elections or derail public trust.

 
 
bottom of page