Can AI judge journalism? The Thiel-backed startup says yes, even at the risk of whistleblowers

After helping lead the lawsuit against the media company that discredited Gawker, Aron D’Souza says he saw something broken in America’s social media: People who had been hurt by the publication had no choice but to fight back.

The answer is software. D’Souza says his recent debut, OppositionIt wants to use AI to judge the truth of journalism. And for $2,000, anyone can pay to challenge a story, and start a public investigation into its claims. (D’Souza is also the founder of Additional Games(Olympic-style competition that allows performance-enhancing drugs will begin in Las Vegas next month.)

The lawsuit was launched on Wednesday with “several millions” in seed funding from Peter Thiel and Balaji Srinivasan, as well as VC firms Social Impact Capital and Off Piste Capital.

Thiel, who paid the Gawker lawsuit on the other hand, in order to protect individual rights, he has been protesting for a long time on TV. D’Souza says his aim is to restore confidence in the Fourth Estate, which he says has fallen over the years. Opponents, including media lawyers, warn that Denial would make it difficult to publish the kind of reports that make powerful organizations accountable, especially if the report relies on confidential information.

Anonymous sources have played a key role in the award-winning investigation into corporate corruption and wrongdoing. These are often people who are at risk of being fired or facing further retaliation for sharing valuable information. It is the journalist’s job – along with their editors, colleagues, and lawyers – to ensure that the sources are reliable and free from malfeasance and to verify the information they provide.

But this is not enough for D’Souza, who said that “the use of an anonymous source that has not been independently verified” would lead to less evidence and less credibility of the allegations. Under the platform rubric, basic documents such as regulatory documents and official emails are weighted the most, while anonymous whistleblower claims are placed near the bottom. The articles are compiled by a panel of independent judges — former law enforcement and investigative reporters — and ultimately assigned what Objection calls an “Honor Index,” numbers the company says reflect a reporter’s integrity, accuracy, and reputation.

“Protecting source information is an important way to tell an important story, but there’s an equal power there,” D’Souza told TechCrunch in an exclusive interview. “The story is told, but there is no way to deny the source.”

The answer gives the journalists a loss: either release confidential information to the “cryptographic hash” of the Objection that verifies “if it is a high-quality report,” or they face mistakes in protecting sources who share important information at high risk. If technology like Objection takes off, it could blow the whistle, experts argue.

Jane Kirtley, an attorney and professor of law and media at the University of Minnesota, says the Objection is part of a long-standing conspiracy that undermines public trust in the media.

“If the headline is, ‘Here’s another example of how the media is lying to you,’ that’s another tool to undermine public confidence in independent journalism,” he said, adding that the media should do their part to be as transparent as possible in their reporting.

Kirtley pointed to existing journalistic standards, such as the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, which advises journalists to use anonymous sources only when there is no other way to obtain information. He cited long-standing corporate practices such as peer criticism and internal audits as ways to respond. In general, he questioned whether Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are not anchored in the journalistic tradition have the analytical tools to help people.

D’Souza says that Denial doesn’t just want to block speakers: “It’s an attempt to find the truth; it’s the same as (X’s) Community Notes. The wisdom of the crowd combined with the power of technology to create new ways of telling the truth.”

When asked if Objection would make it harder for journalists to report important stories that have the power to be accountable, he said “If it raises standards of transparency and trust, that’s a good thing.”

He calls Opposition an “unreliable system” with transparent methods that rely on a group of large languages ​​from OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, Mistral, and Google, which are encouraged to act as ordinary readers and analyze the evidence. The company’s chief engineer, a former NASA and SpaceX engineer, Kyle Grant-Talbot, leads technology development on the platform, which D’Souza says is designed to harness the power of science in policy debates.

The idea comes as AI systems review biases, biases, and exposure — all of which can undermine their use as fact-checkers.

Although Criticism can be applied to any medium, including podcasts and social media, D’Souza’s focus remains on historical and literary texts.

“Each objection is limited to one issue only,” D’Souza said in a follow-up email. “This means that even when reporting is long and difficult, the criticism is limited to anecdotal evidence.

Complaints cost $2,000, a high price for most Americans but less for wealthy individuals or corporations who might turn to the courts. D’Souza said he hopes the platform will serve people who feel they are being misrepresented on the radio. But critics note that those who can use Objection can be powerful players who have other ways to fall back.

“The fact that this is a pay-to-play system … tells me that they are less concerned with providing useful information to the general public and more concerned with providing an already powerful means of defeating their media adversaries,” Kirtley said.

First Amendment and defamation advocate Chris Mattei was blunt, saying the platform “seems like a way to protect the rich and powerful.”

“At a time when many people try to hide the truth, we need to encourage whistleblowers and information about wrongdoing,” said Mattei, who is the head of the prosecution. “The purpose of this company seems to be different.”

The system only reviews the evidence provided to them, including those provided by the parties and the materials collected by its investigators, which raises questions about the incomplete or unclear performance, which is common in investigative reporting.

When asked how to prevent misuse, such as by companies that want to publish inappropriate news or a system that does not have enough evidence, D’Souza said that journalists can provide their evidence to protect their reputation. This requires journalists to participate in a system they are not part of, which can put their credibility on the line. If they don’t, the system can produce “unconfirmed” results, which can cast doubt on accurate reports but are difficult to publicly verify.

Even when the Opposition does not find a problem with the story, something called a “Fire Blanket” may raise doubts about its credibility. The tool, which works on X through the platform’s APIs, flags objectionable claims in real time by sending alerts – placing the company’s “investigated” label in public discussions while the claims are being analyzed.

Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar at UCLA, said the platform would not infringe on free speech protections, placing it instead as part of an ecosystem of criticism that surrounds journalism. He compared the idea to opposition party research aimed at journalists rather than politicians, and criticized the idea that it could undermine whistleblowers.

“Every criticism brings joy,” he told TechCrunch.

Whether someone takes it, or just tunes in, may determine whether Objection changes journalism again or joins a growing system of tools trying to do so.

Or as Kirtley put it: “Why would you believe that an AI would give you more reliable information about truth or falsehood (facts) than a reporter who researched and wrote the story? I mean, why would you even think that?

Editor’s note: Because D’Souza’s ideas are about transparency and accountability, we have published them. link to all articleslightly edited for length and clarity.