Coordinated Smear Campaigns

Smear campaigns are used to undermine credibility, disrupt publication, and isolate writers from their audiences.

Unlike direct intimidation, these campaigns operate through reputation. They aim to make a writer appear unreliable, dangerous, or untrustworthy — often by introducing doubt rather than making clear accusations.

These campaigns are rarely spontaneous. They are often coordinated, sustained, and designed to appear organic.

How they operate

Smear campaigns typically unfold across digital platforms and are shaped by a writer’s activity.

The more visible or active a writer becomes, the more frequent and more serious the attacks tend to be. This scaling is not accidental — it is designed to suppress public activity over time, making visibility itself feel risky.

Campaigns often involve networks of accounts amplifying criticism or allegations, creating the impression of widespread concern or controversy. These networks are frequently supported by automated systems or bot accounts, increasing reach and reinforcing the appearance of legitimacy.

In many cases, fabricated or manipulated material is used to support these claims. This can include documents designed to appear official, images altered or taken out of context, or content generated using AI to create plausible but false evidence. In some cases, materials may draw on real formats associated with state institutions, further strengthening their credibility.

These campaigns often draw on the values of the societies they are targeting.

Allegations may be framed around issues that carry strong social and institutional consequences — such as sexual violence, racism, or other forms of discrimination. By aligning claims with concerns that are taken seriously in open societies, they increase the likelihood of a rapid and cautious response. In this way, the mechanisms designed to uphold standards and protect individuals can be used to apply pressure, even where the underlying claims are false or misleading.

Targeting and amplification

These campaigns do not focus only on the writer.

Supporters, collaborators, publishers, editors, and institutions connected to the writer may also be targeted. This widens the pressure, making engagement with the writer feel risky for others.

Attacks are often carried out through intermediaries or proxies, sometimes based in the country of origin, which can give the impression of local credibility or community concern. At the same time, networks of coordinated accounts amplify the content, making it appear as if the criticism is broad-based rather than originating from a small number of actors.

The same sources may operate across multiple fronts — repeating and adapting claims across platforms, audiences, and contexts. A single writer may be targeted in different ways depending on where their work appears, with messaging adjusted to be effective for specific audiences.

Beyond borders

These campaigns are particularly effective in more open environments.

Where direct threats would be illegal or likely to be removed or prosecuted, smear campaigns operate in a more ambiguous space. By avoiding explicit threats and instead relying on accusation, suggestion, and reputational doubt, they are able to remain visible and difficult to challenge.

Publishers, journalists, event organisers, and institutions are often required to make quick decisions, without the time or ability to verify claims made in unfamiliar languages or contexts.

As a result, even weak or unproven allegations can have consequences. Invitations may be withdrawn, publications delayed or cancelled, and opportunities quietly removed.

While these actions are often framed as precautionary, the outcome is similar to more direct forms of repression: the writer is prevented from reaching an audience. This dynamic is particularly effective in environments where institutions are expected to respond quickly to allegations, especially those involving serious social harms.

Relationship to other forms of pressure

Smear campaigns often work alongside other forms of digital repression.

They may draw on information gathered through surveillance, and are frequently combined with platform manipulation — such as coordinated reporting designed to trigger content removal or account restrictions.

They also mirror forms of coercion used in more controlled environments. Where direct intimidation may be used inside a country, reputational attacks can achieve similar outcomes outside it.

Impact

The effects of smear campaigns extend beyond individual incidents.

They create an environment in which visibility carries risk, credibility can be challenged at any time, and publication becomes uncertain. Writers may find themselves pre-emptively defending their work, limiting their activity, or withdrawing from opportunities altogether.

Over time, this suppresses not only specific pieces of writing, but public engagement more broadly.