Their Article:

The Truth:
The article above from Smartmatic, while ostensibly discussing the solution to disinformation through prebunking, subtly employs several psychological manipulation tactics aimed at controlling the narrative and conditioning public perception:
Establishing Authority and Credibility: By citing what some people think are esteemed organizations like the World Economic Forum and the Brennan Center for Justice, Smartmatic attempts to position itself as some kind of authority on election integrity. This tactic leverages the halo effect, where the positive attributes of these respected institutions are transferred to Smartmatic, enhancing its perceived trustworthiness without necessarily proving its own systems’ reliability.
Fear-Mongering: The article begins with a dire warning about the threat of disinformation to elections, invoking fear about the ‘deterioration of information ecosystems’. This emotional manipulation tactic is designed to make readers anxious about the integrity of elections, thereby making them more receptive to Smartmatic’s proposed solution, prebunking. Sadly, fear sells.
Repetitive Pattern Recognition: Smartmatic describes misinformation as having repetitive tactics, suggesting that they are well-versed in these patterns due to their research and partnerships with academic bodies like Cambridge and Google’s Jigsaw. This establishes a narrative where Smartmatic is the expert in identifying and countering disinformation, subtly implying that their proprietary systems are above scrutiny because they understand the threats better than anyone else.
Prebunking as Conditioning: The concept of “prebunking” itself can be seen as a conditioning tactic. By framing prebunking as a preventive measure against misinformation, Smartmatic is conditioning the public to accept their narrative before any counter-narrative can even be formed. This preemptive strategy is designed to inoculate the public against questioning Smartmatic’s systems or practices, by preemptively discrediting potential criticisms as disinformation.
Generalization Over Specificity: By focusing on the broad techniques of disinformation rather than addressing specific instances or criticisms of their own systems, Smartmatic avoids detailed scrutiny. This tactic diverts attention from any potential flaws in their technology by generalizing the problem, making it seem as if any critique is just another example of the disinformation they are combating.
Appeal to Public Trust: The article suggests that prebunking combats disinformation without appearing politicized, thus positioning Smartmatic as an impartial guardian of the electoral process. This can be seen as an attempt to manipulate public trust by presenting themselves as defenders of democracy rather than as the commercial entity with vested interests that they are.
Selective Research Presentation: Mentioning specific studies that support prebunking while not addressing the potential for misuse or the criticisms of such methods is yet another form of manipulation. It presents a one-sided view that conveniently favors Smartmatic’s narrative on election integrity.
Their intent here appears to be not to inform, but to preemptively shape public opinion in a way that discourages skepticism or new, potentially damaging, information about Smartmatic’s voting systems. This article can be seen as an effort to condition citizens to trust Smartmatic’s proprietary and opaque systems over public transparency and open scrutiny, which are fundamental to democratic accountability.
I encourage all citizens NOT to fall for these tactics, and instead to question the motives behind such information operations. The only way for the people to legitimately trust THEIR elections is if the PEOPLE are who once again run THEIR elections. Remember, EARNED trust is worlds better than MANDATED trust, especially by those who profit on our blind trust.