After helping lead the lawsuit that bankrupted media firm Gawker, Aron D’Souza says he saw something broken in the American media system: People who felt harmed by coverage had little recourse to fight back.

His solution is software. D’Souza says his latest startup, Objection, aims to use AI to adjudicate the truth of journalism. And for the price of $2,000, anyone can pay to challenge a story, triggering a public investigation into its claims. (D’Souza is also the founder of the Enhanced Games, an Olympics-style competition that allows performance-enhancing drugs and is set to debut in Las Vegas next month.)

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

Thiel, who funded the Gawker lawsuit partly in defense of the individual right to privacy, has long been critical of the media. D’Souza says his goal is to restore trust in the Fourth Estate, which he argues has collapsed over decades. Critics, including media lawyers, warn Objection could make it harder to publish the kind of reporting that holds powerful institutions to account, particularly if that reporting relies on confidential sources.

Anonymous sources have played a key role in major award-winning investigations into corruption and corporate wrongdoing. These are often people who are at risk of losing their jobs or facing other retaliation for sharing important information. It’s the journalist’s job — alongside their publication’s editors, peers, and lawyers — to ensure that those sources are reliable and not acting out of pure malice and to verify the information they provide. 

But that’s not enough for D’Souza, who said “using a fully anonymized source who hasn’t been independently verified” would lead to a lower evidence and trust score on Objection. Under the platform’s rubric, primary records like regulatory filings and official emails carry the most weight, while anonymous whistleblower claims are ranked near the bottom. Those inputs are collected in part by a team of freelancers — former law enforcement agents and investigative journalists — and are ultimately fed into what Objection calls an “Honor Index,” a numerical score the company says reflects a reporter’s integrity, accuracy, and track record.  

“Protecting a source’s information is a vital way of telling an important story, but there’s an important power asymmetry there,” D’Souza told TechCrunch in an exclusive interview. “The subject gets reported upon, but then there’s no way to critique the source.”

His solution presents a lose-lose for journalists: either divulge sensitive source information to Objection’s “cryptographic hash” that determines “if it’s high quality reporting,” or face demerits for protecting sources who share important information at great personal risk. If technology like Objection takes off, it could chill whistleblowing, experts argue.

Jane Kirtley, a lawyer and professor of media law and ethics at the University of Minnesota, says Objection fits into a long pattern of attacks that erode public trust in the press. 

“If the underlying theme is, ‘Here’s yet another example of how the news media are lying to you,’ that’s one more chink in the armor to help destroy public confidence in independent journalism,” she said, adding that clearly journalists need to do their part to be as transparent as possible in their reporting. 

Kirtley pointed to existing journalistic standards, like the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, which advises reporters to use anonymous sources only when there is no other way to obtain the information. She also cited longstanding industry practices like peer criticism and internal editorial review as built-in accountability methods. More broadly, she questioned whether Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are not steeped in journalistic traditions are equipped to evaluate what serves the public interest. 

D’Souza says Objection is not an attempt to silence whistleblowers: “It’s an attempt to fact-check; it’s the same as [X’s] Community Notes. The wisdom of the crowd plus the power of technology to create new methods of truth-telling.”

When asked if Objection could make it harder for media to publish important stories holding power to account, he said “If it raises the standards of transparency and trust, that’s a good thing.”

He calls Objection a “trustless system” with transparent methodology that relies on a jury of large language models from OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, Mistral, and Google, prompted to act as average readers and evaluate evidence claim by claim. The company’s chief technologist, ex-NASA and SpaceX engineer Kyle Grant-Talbot, leads the technical development on the platform, which D’Souza says is designed to apply scientific rigor to disputes over facts. 

The proposal comes as AI systems themselves face scrutiny over bias, hallucinations, and transparency — all of which could complicate their use as arbiters of truth. 

While Objection can be applied to any published content, including podcasts and social media, D’Souza’s focus remains largely on legacy and written media outlets. 

“Each objection is limited to a single factual allegation,” D’Souza said in a follow-up email. “This means that even where reporting is long and complex, an objection will be limited to a narrow factual issue within it. A user may choose to file multiple objections to different parts of the same article, but these will all proceed independently of each other.”

Objections cost $2,000, a steep price for most Americans but relatively minor for wealthy individuals or corporations that might otherwise turn to the courts. D’Souza said he expects the platform to serve people who feel misrepresented in the media. But critics note that those who are most able to use Objection are likely to be the same powerful actors who already have other avenues to push back.

“The fact that this is a pay-to-play kind of system … tells me that they are less concerned about providing helpful information for the general public and much more concerned with giving the already powerful a means to basically browbeat their journalistic opponents,” said Kirtley.

First Amendment and defamation lawyer Chris Mattei was even more blunt, saying the platform “seems like a high-tech protection racket for the rich and powerful.”

“At a time when so many try to obscure the truth, we should be encouraging whistleblowers with knowledge of wrongdoing,” said Mattei, who is a leading litigator. “The purpose of this company seems to be the opposite.”

The system also only evaluates evidence submitted to it, including party submissions and material gathered by its investigators, raising questions about how it handles incomplete or undisclosed information, which is common in investigative reporting. 

When asked how he would prevent misuse, such as companies targeting unfavorable coverage or the system itself lacking sensitive evidence, D’Souza said journalists can submit their own evidence to protect their reputations. That effectively requires reporters to participate in a system they didn’t opt into, one that could further put their credibility on the line. If they don’t, the system may return an “indeterminable” result, potentially casting doubt on reporting that is accurate but difficult to verify publicly. 

Even when Objection finds no issue with a story, a companion feature called “Fire Blanket” can still introduce doubt about its credibility. The tool, currently active on X via platform APIs, flags disputed claims in real time by posting warnings — injecting the company’s own “under investigation” labels into public conversations while the claim is still under review.

Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar at UCLA, said the platform itself would not likely violate free speech protections, framing it instead as part of the broader ecosystem of criticism that surrounds journalism. He compared the concept to opposition research that’s aimed at reporters instead of politicians, and dismissed the idea that it would have a chilling effect on whistleblowers. 

“All criticism creates a chilling effect,” he told TechCrunch. 

Whether anyone adopts it, or simply tunes it out, may determine whether Objection reshapes journalism or fades into the growing ecosystem of tools attempting to do so. 

Or as Kirtley said: “Why would you believe that AI would necessarily give you more reliable information about the truth or fals[ity] of fact than a journalist who had researched and written the story? I mean, why would you just assume that? I wouldn’t assume that at all.”

Editor’s note: Because D’Souza’s proposal centers on transparency and accountability, we have published a link to the full transcript, edited lightly for length and clarity.