. One of the reasons information wars are so effective is that targets of attacks underestimate inaction. Often, when actions become vital, it is too late.

. First of all, we need to understand that our vision of the problem is completely different from our audience's vision. Moreover, even within our audience, there will be many different opinions on the issue under discussion. Our communication should be based on a situational assessment of our audience, not ours.

. It should be understood that if a well-designed information campaign is launched against us, then we will probably lose a certain percentage of users in any case. These will include hesitant users who had some hypotheses that our competitors just caught on to.

. The most effective form of disinformation is "semi-truth" - when partially truthful statements are mixed with fiction. Suppose the opponent has focused on some weak component in our product. In the near future, we should avoid problems with this component so as not to reinforce the opponent's arguments. Users will be especially focused on that component, so the slightest flaw will be exaggerated ().

. If we reliably know that the material that criticizes us is not an isolated case but the beginning of an information campaign, we should inform our audience about the expected negative materials. This step can significantly reduce the further impact of such information on the audience. Such preventive measures are often used by politicians.

. Sometimes, it may seem that an article or another material that criticizes us is "obviously stupid" and that this will not affect our audience in any way because "they know that it is not true." To correctly asses such assumptions we should check those with our team members.

. Suppose we have publicly proven the groundlessness of the arguments of our opponents. Depending on the duration of this whole unpleasant situation, we should let some time pass before the influence of disinformation completely wears off.

. We should not conduct a survey to know whether our audience believes in the "absurdity" that our opponents have written. The results of such a survey will be highly questionable, regardless of the form of its conduct. The real moods and opinions of our audience will not be indicated in it.

. We should never criticize our audience for believing in disinformation.

. If the opponent criticizes us by showing correlations between events that have no connection, then it may be effective for us to show dozens of ridiculous correlations ourselves. This way, we will "dilute" the material and significantly weaken its impact on the audience.

. Using balanced humor in communication as a defense against information campaigns is another effective method. To understand whether we should or shouldn’t do this, we have to focus only on our audience, and not on our desires.

. In our communication, we can appeal to the "absolute majority" of our users, who realize the insignificance and absurdity of our opponents' material. This is another technique widely used in politics.

. By understanding the self-reference effect mechanism, we can reformulate the problem by publicly stating that our opponents are not attacking us, but our audience/partners/clients. Of course, in the sequel, we must clearly state that "we will not allow this and will protect our users from such attacks." By shifting the arrows from ourselves to the audience, we make the problem of the information campaign common for us and the users. This allows us to guarantee our audience immunity to the communication of our opponents and, along the way, to discredit them. This technique is also very widely used in politics.

. Regardless of received damage, time will heal everything. We just need to monitor the situation and make sure that we’re not making the same mistakes.