After Russia invaded Ukraine, some young Americans created scam Instagram accounts that shared videos and photos about the unfolding events. Pretending to be journalists on the ground, they attracted millions of followers and profited from the ads placed on their pages before they were taken down. It was not an isolated incident; the opportunity to monetize by misleading is the basis of a massive fake news market.
Fabricated content on the Internet is monetized through a complex, decentralized network that involves actors ranging from major tech companies to small-scale TikTok creators. To understand how the system works, consider an example from the 2016 presidential election in the US.
In the months leading up to the election, young people in the Macedonian village of Veles produced fake news stories promoting the themes and positions of then-Republican candidate Donald Trump’s campaign. These writers mixed misinformation with real news to persuade readers about their stories’ veracity. They then posted the stories to right-wing Web sites and generated traffic by linking the stories to social media platforms. As traffic grew, the stories attracted ad placements sold by big tech companies, generating revenue.
By connecting ad placement to traffic, companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google are facilitators of the fake news market. However, they are only part of the overall system. Ad tech companies are responsible for the environment that funds fake news.
In a 2019 study of the US ad tech industry, researchers concluded that the online advertising ecosystem encourages the promotion of fake news through its use of intermediaries. Advertisers rarely know where their ads end up, so major companies like tech firms, airlines and retailers indirectly fund fake news Web sites. And the market’s decentralized nature means these brands face no consequences if their ads run on sites that promote misinformation.
Public relations and marketing companies also play a role in expanding the market by offering money to celebrities to spread fake news. Over the past two years, marketing agencies have sought YouTubers and other social media influencers to spread misinformation about COVID-19, particularly among young people.
Ad blockers can reduce the effect of fake news by limiting the number of people who see a promotion for a fake news story. However, growing use of ad blockers also damages legitimate news Web sites that rely on advertising for revenue.
Much of the fake news market operates behind the scenes, so its overall size is not known with certainty. An analysis by NewsGuard and Comscore estimates that publishers of misinformation earn US$2.6 billion annually from big brands through advertising companies, and the GDI estimated that disinformation Web sites brought in US$250 million in advertising revenue in 2019.
The easiest way to combat the spread of fake news is to prevent it from generating income. Revcontent, a global leader in online content marketing, has announced that it would demonetize content rated as false by at least two international fact-checking organizations. This kind of intervention would have a more significant impact if it is adopted by big tech companies.
Exposing the networks that sustain this market is another way to confront the problem. The watchdog group Check My Ads has helped to pioneer this approach. Earlier this year, research from Check My Ads led Google to remove some accounts that promoted misinformation about COVID-19 from its AdSense platform. A freely accessible database tracing funding sources would be an important tool in the fight against the misinformation market.
There is a strong argument that governments should tax platforms on the revenue they generate from fake news, but such a plan would be difficult to implement without a compelling definition of the targeted content.
Section 230 of the US Civil Code, which protects online platforms from liability for content published by third-party actors, further complicates the task of regulating the circulation of fake news.
The fake news market depends on the exchange of online attention for money. An effective strategy to combat it must reset this equation. While governments devise legal measures to hold content creators and marketers accountable for disseminating fake news, ordinary people also must take responsibility for their role in spreading misinformation.
The best way to push market-driven companies and influencers to be more engaged with the content they promote is to stop buying what they are selling.
Mohamed Suliman is a senior disinformation researcher at the Northeastern University Civic AI Lab.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS