By InDepth Reports
For much of modern history, the ability to shape public opinion beyond national borders was largely the domain of governments. Intelligence agencies ran covert operations, military units conducted psychological warfare, and diplomats worked to advance national interests through official channels. Today, however, many of these activities have migrated into the private sector. Across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America, a growing network of companies now offers services once associated with state intelligence agencies: digital surveillance, cyber operations, online influence campaigns, reputation management, and political manipulation.
The emergence of this industry has transformed information itself into a commodity that can be bought and sold. Governments are no longer the only actors capable of launching sophisticated influence campaigns. Wealthy individuals, corporations, political parties, and private clients can increasingly access tools designed to manipulate narratives, amplify certain viewpoints, suppress criticism, or target opponents. What has emerged is a global marketplace where influence has become a service and information warfare a business model.
From Cybersecurity to Information Warfare
Investigations over the past decade have revealed how rapidly this sector has expanded. While legitimate cybersecurity firms focus on protecting networks and identifying vulnerabilities, a parallel ecosystem has developed around offensive capabilities. Some companies advertise advanced intelligence-gathering services, while others operate in legal gray zones, offering tools capable of monitoring communications, harvesting personal data, or shaping online conversations.
Researchers and digital rights organizations warn that the distinction between cybersecurity and cyber manipulation has become increasingly blurred. Technologies initially developed for defensive purposes can be repurposed to conduct surveillance, collect sensitive information, or influence public discourse. In many cases, the same expertise used to protect systems can also be used to exploit them.
The Team Jorge Revelation
Perhaps no case better illustrates this transformation than the revelations surrounding Team Jorge, an Israeli-linked group exposed through an international journalistic investigation. Undercover recordings appeared to show operatives describing their ability to interfere in elections, create large networks of fake social media accounts, and conduct influence operations across multiple countries.
While some of the group’s claims remain disputed, the investigation provided a rare glimpse into an industry that usually operates far from public scrutiny. More importantly, it demonstrated how services traditionally associated with intelligence agencies can now be contracted through private actors. The exposure of Team Jorge raised broader questions about how many similar firms operate globally and how little is known about their clients and activities.
Artificial Intelligence Supercharges Influence Operations
The rise of artificial intelligence has accelerated this trend dramatically. A decade ago, running a sophisticated disinformation campaign required teams of analysts, writers, translators, graphic designers, and social media managers. Today, many of those functions can be automated. Generative AI systems can produce convincing articles, social media posts, images, audio recordings, and even realistic videos within minutes.
Experts warn that this technological shift has fundamentally altered the economics of influence operations by lowering costs and increasing scale. A small group of operators can now create content volumes that previously required large organizations. As AI tools become more accessible, concerns are growing that influence campaigns will become harder to detect and easier to deploy across multiple languages and regions simultaneously.
Manufacturing Confusion
The implications extend far beyond election interference. Researchers have documented coordinated campaigns targeting migration debates, public health discussions, geopolitical conflicts, and social movements. In many cases, the objective is not necessarily to convince audiences of a specific narrative. Instead, campaigns seek to create confusion, deepen polarization, and erode trust in institutions.
When citizens are confronted with a constant stream of conflicting information, distinguishing fact from fiction becomes increasingly difficult. This uncertainty can weaken democratic processes and reduce public confidence in media, governments, and even scientific institutions. Rather than promoting a single version of events, many modern influence operations aim to undermine the very idea of objective truth.
A Regulatory Vacuum
At the same time, regulation has struggled to keep pace with technological developments. While many countries maintain strict controls on the export of conventional weapons, oversight of digital influence tools remains fragmented and inconsistent. Companies often operate across multiple jurisdictions, taking advantage of regulatory gaps and complex corporate structures.
A firm registered in one country may provide services through subsidiaries in another while serving clients located on a different continent altogether. This transnational structure makes accountability difficult and complicates efforts by regulators and law enforcement agencies seeking to monitor activities that cross borders and legal systems.
Following the Money
Financial transparency presents an equally significant challenge. Influence operations frequently involve consulting firms, public relations agencies, offshore entities, and subcontractors, creating layers of separation between clients and operators. These arrangements can obscure who is paying for a campaign, who is executing it, and who ultimately benefits from its outcomes.
Anti-corruption experts argue that existing transparency frameworks are ill-equipped to address these networks, particularly when influence activities are disguised as marketing, strategic communications, or digital consulting services. As a result, tracking financial flows behind influence campaigns has become one of the most difficult tasks facing investigators.
The Human Rights Dimension
Human rights organizations have repeatedly warned that the commercialization of surveillance and influence technologies poses risks extending well beyond politics. Journalists, activists, opposition figures, and civil society organizations have increasingly found themselves targeted by sophisticated monitoring tools developed by private companies.
In some cases, technologies originally marketed for law enforcement or national security purposes have reportedly been used to track dissidents and suppress criticism. The growing availability of these capabilities raises concerns about who has access to them and under what safeguards. Critics argue that the lack of oversight creates opportunities for abuse, particularly in countries with weak democratic institutions.
The Future of Influence
The expansion of the influence-for-hire industry reflects a broader shift in the global information environment. As artificial intelligence becomes more powerful and digital platforms continue to dominate public discourse, the ability to shape perceptions has become both more valuable and more accessible. The result is an ecosystem where influence can be purchased, narratives can be engineered, and public opinion can be treated as a strategic asset.
The question facing governments, regulators, and citizens is no longer whether these markets exist. The evidence suggests they are already deeply embedded in the global digital economy. The challenge now is understanding their scale, identifying the actors involved, and determining how democratic societies can respond before the commercialization of influence further erodes trust in the information upon which those societies depend.