Thread by @JoshRudes

Having spent the past week thinking about how to regulate firms offering “black PR” (as in black ops meant to be deniable, like anti-vax disinfo from Moscow), I found this news of “white PR” to advocate for vaccination to be interesting and inspired. 🧵 nytimes.com/2021/08/01/tec…

Here’s the case that got me concerned about this influence vector last week. An secret funder in Moscow—whose identify was laundered by a PR front—paid YouTube influencers to spread disinfo that Pfizer vaccines kill, not disclosing the sponsorship. bbc.com/news/blogs-tre…

When the good guys start fighting fire with fire by adopting these tactics, it usually doesn’t work out too well for democracy. Take the Philippines, where it hasn’t helped Duterte’s opponents win elections, just normalized disinfo by competing PR firms. buzzfeednews.com/article/craigs…

But in this case, it’s not adoption of the same tactics of disinfo pushed through black PR and marketing firms. The PR firms are transparent about the client and the influencer discloses the sponsorship, if any. nytimes.com/2021/08/01/tec…

I’m inclined to recommend PR and marketing firms be subject to AML rules, but only if they’re providing clients with anonymity and deniability—i.e., black ops, not traditional PR or marketing work. This will be covered in a chapter of my forthcoming report on regulating enablers.