The convergence of media, cyber operations, generative artificial intelligence (AI) and brute force communications has seen the emergence of a myriad of challenges and opportunities. The Crisis Management Centre calls it the ‘Actual Angry People Gambit’, which could cause election interference and government destabilisation on one side, and reputational attacks on CEOs and leading companies in critical supply chains on the other.
To learn more about the tactics of those on the cutting edge of manipulation and how they play the game, News Hub Asia spoke with Nordin Abdullah, founder of the Crisis Management Centre, after his commentary on the ‘Actual Angry People Gambit’ appeared in the New Straits Times.
How does the ‘Actual Angry Person Gambit’ start and why do businesses and political leaders need to pay attention to this new form of attack?
What makes it so powerful is that the messages are authentic as they come from actual people whose anger suits a certain group. It usually starts from an issue that is bubbling just below the surface, and the first post or the post that is chosen is the tip of the iceberg. That’s why it resonates with enough people, which kicks off the chain reaction.
We have seen this process play out in recent weeks, but we have been tracking incidents of this approach for several years. It is only lately that it has become more widespread and deeper in impact. Of late, it has played out to benefit domestic narratives and has been used to amplify manipulated narratives internationally.
Is the goal of this tactic to destabilise governments or to attack businesses in a given industry?
The goal can vary, but usually, it relates to building up a groundswell of anger in a group of people to get the group or elements within the group to behave in a certain way. This can be very destabilising if rolled out on a nationwide basis.
For businesses as well, we have seen the negative impact of weaponised information and narrative manipulation in recent months. In some cases, competitive businesses can create attacks on brands, businesses or even business leaders, which disrupt whole supply chains and industries, or a given company.
On one level, there is a need to provide a secure business environment free from these kinds of attacks. On another and maybe more simple level, it’s never good to increase the number of angry people – we are striving to build happy societies.
How can this type of social media attack be identified? Do people need advanced tools, or can a simple method be used?
Using social media listening tools and the right type of data scientist, it has become easier to track these attacks – including mapping them out and understanding the possible next moves.
For normal users on social media, the best gauge is to look at the accounts that are commenting; many of them have a very low number of followers. Especially in Malaysia, because Malaysians usually have high levels of social media connectivity.
The other is that many of the comments are overwhelmingly similar. But it’s not simple, especially with the use of AI to generate the content. In one recent case, we found an issue related to food security had over 40 per cent manipulated content generated from over 7,000 fake accounts.
In your recent article in the New Straits Times, you mentioned that the media are vulnerable to manipulation by digital mercenaries. Can you explain further?
The real challenge comes when a media reports on a story that is going viral and quotes a given account including what the post says. This has happened without verification of the account user. All because the media’s social media and digital platforms will benefit from riding the algorithm spike.
We recently conducted a nationwide programme with The National Press Club of Malaysia and many media reported that they don’t have dedicated fact-checking departments or in-house resources. When the media picks up the story, it validates and amplifies the message; this is the multiplier effect that the manipulator is aiming for.
Can governments do more in developing policy and regulatory frameworks to address these types of attacks?
At the policy level, we need to continue to innovate and adapt to changes. This does not just mean government policy, but corporate policy and the policy of media outlets need to be improved to meet these new challenges.
One area where we have seen positive development is from the Multimedia and Content Forum of Malaysia (or the Content Forum). They have developed a series of guidelines such as the Content Code, and their members agree to self-regulation. This is for content in online news and broadcast.
While Malaysia is looking to improve the regulatory framework, which takes time, the manipulators can operate in any country or an office next door. We will have to see the convergence of cyber security and communication law to address this challenge.
Malaysia, through the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission or MCMC, are doing as much as they can – a recent raid yielded over 10,000 sim cards, which could be used to generate massive amounts of fake accounts.
This impacts the reputation of the individuals, businesses and governments that come under attack. We can’t have so many negative narratives floating around and expect investors to flock to our shores.
Moving forward, what does a resilient and sustainable response look like?
The first and most important step is awareness followed quickly by education. The ability to respond quickly with the facts is important but this can’t only be done during a crisis; a reservoir of goodwill needs to be built over time.
The other way is to deal with the root cause of the anger quickly so that an “Actual Angry Person” doesn’t go on a rant that then kicks off the whole process. 
