Skip to content

Information Tracer (Rolli)

PaidInstitutional

Vendor: informationtracer.com | Type: Non-detector | Cost: Paid

TL;DR

Cross-platform claim and narrative tracer used by newsrooms during breaking news to follow where a circulating claim came from and how it spread across Facebook, X, TikTok, Telegram, and other public surfaces. The primary 2C.1 entry for institutional-tier cross-platform monitoring; pairs with Media Cloud as the free academic alternative for partners outside the paid budget.

What it does

Information Tracer ingests a claim or narrative (a short text, a URL, a hashtag) and returns a cross-platform timeline of where the same content (or near-duplicates) has appeared, how the appearances relate in time, and which accounts amplified the early waves. The tool's operational value is collapsing what would otherwise be five separate platform searches plus manual reconciliation into a single dashboard suitable for a newsroom on deadline. The output is provenance and spread evidence about the claim, not a verdict on its truth.

The tool fits Pillar 2's institutional tier because the question it answers ("where did this come from and how is it moving") is qualitatively different from per-message verification at the tipline layer (2B). When a verified false claim has already escaped into the information ecosystem, what an institutional partner needs is the spread footprint and the early-amplifier set, not another debunk of the claim itself. Information Tracer produces that footprint as a non-detector behavioural signal.

When to use it

  • A breaking-news desk needs to know within the first hour whether a circulating claim is appearing on multiple platforms simultaneously (synthetic amplification signature) or surfacing on one platform and trickling outward (organic spread signature).
  • An election-cycle monitoring operation in Indonesia or the Philippines is tracking a narrative cluster across Facebook, TikTok, and Telegram and needs the cross-platform timeline as a single-pane view rather than five separate platform tabs.
  • A regional fact-check coalition is preparing a published cross-platform investigation and needs documentation of the earliest appearances and the amplification path for the methodology section.
  • An institutional research partner is corroborating an open-source CIB finding (CIB Mango Tree, CooRTweet) with a parallel cross-platform spread trace before publishing.

Limitations

Limitations

  • Cross-platform correlation can be inaccurate when user behaviour differs across networks. The same actor posting different framings of a claim on Facebook versus X may register as separate origins on the timeline; analyst review of the output is part of the method.
  • English-language interface; documented use is in international newsroom contexts. SEA-language content works language-agnostically (the tool is matching content tokens, not parsing language) but no SEA-specific deployment case is on record.
  • Paid-mid tier sits above the budget of typical individual SEA newsrooms outside institutional grant access. The toolkit lists Media Cloud as the free academic alternative for partners on a research budget, with the trade-off that Media Cloud's news-source coverage is structurally thinner for SEA languages.
  • Output is provenance and spread evidence about a claim, not a verdict on the claim's truth. Per Anchor 2 the spread signal combines with a claim-extraction or fact-check signal from Pillar 2B before any publishable assertion about the operation.

Privacy and threat model

Information Tracer is a hosted service; queries an analyst submits travel to the tool's infrastructure and the spread-trace results are returned through that channel. For institutional users the standard data-handling regime (vendor terms review, access logs, retention policy review) applies to the contracted use.

The threat model that matters here is operational rather than data-flow. A spread trace that names accounts is research output; local legal regimes shape what can be published. Indonesia's UU ITE / PDP, the Philippines's COMELEC Resolution 11064 election-period content rules, Thailand's lèse-majesté constraints, Sri Lanka's OSA framework, and Malaysia's Section 233 plus 3R speech laws each carry implications for what cited findings can carry into local publication without secondary legal risk. The tool itself is not the surveillance vector; the publication discipline around findings is.

Source-protection override (S2 — state-linked or legally sensitive)

Spread traces that touch police, military, ruling-party, or state-linked accounts can become enforcement evidence against the analyst's publisher in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Mitigation steps:

  1. Consult Digital Safety, legal counsel, or the editor before publishing any Information Tracer output that names state- linked actors.
  2. Treat the spread trace as research evidence first and published artefact second; named-account network images are themselves attribution claims under local speech laws.
  3. Use the country-page operational guidance (Article 112, OSA, UU ITE, CMA Section 233, Decree 327) to decide which findings can be cited publicly versus held for internal editorial use.

Source-protection override (S4 — doxxing or vulnerable-community targeting)

A spread trace can identify activists, journalists, or minority-community members caught up in the network alongside inauthentic accounts. Mitigation steps:

  1. Before publishing, audit the named accounts for activists, journalists, ethnic or religious minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, migrants, witnesses, or alleged criminals.
  2. Redact identifiers in any published network visualisation; consider a quiet response or tipline-only response in place of a public debunk if retaliation risk is non-trivial.
  3. Assess retaliation risk per the country page's documented harassment-and-doxxing patterns before any publication.

Country and platform applicability

  • Indonesia: language-agnostic; documented institutional use across Indonesian and Philippine newsroom contexts. Pairs with CooRTweet for IFCN-signatory partners running R-based corroboration on the same dataset.
  • Laos: language-agnostic; the tool can run on Lao-language claim tokens, but the Lao information environment is heavily Facebook-centric and the IFCN signatory gap (no Lao signatory) means Meta Content Library data is also generally unavailable. Honest gap: Lao operations will see thinner cross-platform output than Indonesia or the Philippines simply because fewer platforms carry meaningful Lao content.
  • Malaysia: language-agnostic; relevant for tracking Malaysian content across Facebook, TikTok, and Telegram. The Malaysian information environment also requires the network- monitoring layer covered by Sinar Project iMAP for censorship and blocking events that affect what content reaches users in the first place.
  • Philippines: language-agnostic; documented institutional use in the Philippine context . Pairs with the #FactsFirstPH coalition's Meedan Check workflow.
  • Sri Lanka: language-agnostic; applicable to Sinhala and Tamil claim tracing in principle. No Sri Lanka-specific deployment case is recorded in publicly available documentation; the structural thinness of Sri Lankan platform monitoring infrastructure (no Meedan-style tipline backend, no IFCN signatory) is a wider context than this tool alone.
  • Thailand: language-agnostic; relevant for Thai claim tracing across LINE-, Facebook-, and TikTok-mediated narratives.

Platform applicability: cross-platform; the tool's distinguishing feature. Facebook and Facebook Groups, X, TikTok, Telegram , YouTube are the standard surfaces.

How to access

Web-based via the Information Tracer / Rolli portal. Account creation plus institutional billing onboarding through the vendor's commercial process. The tool is not self-service free; access requires an active subscription. For institutional partners considering procurement, the vendor's sales process documents tier features and onboarding.

Cost (current as of 2026-05)

Paid mid-tier. Concrete pricing varies by deployment scale and is not fixed; verify directly through the vendor's commercial process before procurement. The framing for cost is that Information Tracer sits at the institutional-tier price band where Media Cloud (free academic) and Sinar Project iMAP (free open-source SEA-specific) are the civil-society alternatives for partners without the budget.

Quickstart

  1. Open the Information Tracer / Rolli portal and authenticate with your institutional account.
  2. Submit the claim text, URL, or hashtag you want to trace.
  3. Review the cross-platform timeline; note the earliest appearance on each platform and the time gaps between platforms.
  4. Inspect the early-amplifier set on each platform: which accounts carried the claim during the first wave.
  5. Export the timeline and amplifier set for the published investigation's methodology section.
  6. Cross-check against an open-source CIB finding (CIB Mango Tree, CooRTweet (with CooRnet predecessor)) where the operation suggests coordinated amplification beyond organic spread.
  7. Combine the spread trace with a claim-extraction or fact-check signal from Pillar 2B before publishing any binary assertion about the operation per Anchor 2.

In the toolkit's workflow

Behaviour-pillar non-detector tool per Architectural Anchor 1. Sits in 2C.1 Automated claim monitoring as the primary cross-platform tracer alongside Media Cloud (free academic alternative, news-source-corpus focus), Sinar Project iMAP (free open-source SEA-specific network-monitoring), and FactFlow AI (paid Telegram-specific alternative).

Standard combinations:

  • With Media Cloud at 2C.1 as the news-source-corpus complement – Information Tracer covers social-platform spread, Media Cloud covers news-source publication patterns; together they triangulate operations that move between earned media and social amplification.
  • With CooRTweet at 1C.1 for IFCN-signatory partners running coordinated-link-sharing analysis on the same operation; CooRTweet's MCL-data-source path complements Information Tracer's cross-platform timeline.
  • With CIB Mango Tree at 1C.1 as the interactive CIB-detection complement; Mango Tree surfaces coordination patterns inside a single dataset, Information Tracer surfaces cross-platform spread of a specific claim.
  • With Gephi at 2C.2 for publication-grade network visualisation of the amplifier set Information Tracer surfaces.
  • With ABCDE Framework at 2C.3 for codifying the spread-and-amplification signature in public-facing analysis; Information Tracer's output maps directly to the Distribution axis of ABCDE.

Decision-tree references: T2 video triage names Information Tracer at T2.13 (cross-platform identical reuse) for spread-footprint mapping. T5 escalation routes through Information Tracer at T5.13 (contextual OSINT) when an operation shows cross-platform characteristics that single- platform CIB tools cannot resolve.

This card carries no detector signal class: Information Tracer produces a non-detector behavioural-pattern signal. Per Anchor 2 that signal combines with claim-extraction (2B.2), CIB analysis (1C.1), or source-history (1B.1) to support a publishable institutional finding.

Override notes

Override notes

  • Non-detector declaration: Information Tracer produces a non-detector behavioural-pattern signal (cross-platform spread provenance), not a verdict on content authenticity. The card states the signal class explicitly in the workflow section.

  • Cross-platform correlation mitigation (d4-mitigation-pass-cross-platform-correlation): the Limitations admonition records the cross-platform correlation caveat verbatim; analyst review of the timeline output is part of the method, particularly where the same actor uses different framings on different platforms.

Sources

  • Information Tracer / Rolli. Information Tracer — cross-platform claim and narrative tracking. Information Tracer, 2026. informationtracer.com.