Tag: google
How Google Monetizes Far-Right Outlets And Drives Their Traffic

Don't Be Evil: How Google Monetizes Far-Right Social Media And Drives Their Traffic

New analysis provides some insight into the extent to which far-right social media platforms — such as Truth Social, Gab, Parler, Gettr, and Rumble — use Google’s enormous advertising network to expand their audience. In the past 12 months, these fringe platforms have spent roughly $258,000 on ad networks including Google, likely just a fraction of their full spend and a sum that Google’s $210 billion advertising business could surely do without.

Media Matters and others have reported on Google’s history of letting far-right actors monetize extremism, such as helping the monetization of racist and dangerous anti-Muslim articles from the fake news website Freedom Daily, allowing anti-abortion centers to target women with misleading and unlabeled ads, and letting former Trump aide Steve Bannon monetize his website even as he was banned on Google-owned YouTube.

This week, Media Matters reported that a Dewey Square analysis of data from traffic analytics company Similarweb found that Google’s ad network is driving traffic and new users to fringe video-sharing platform Rumble, while also monetizing some of its traffic. Notably, Rumble had 622 million U.S. visits in the last year (from October 2021 through September 2022), and nearly 48% of U.S. display ad traffic driving users to Rumble during that time came from Google Display Network ads.

Additional analysis from Dewey found that Google is similarly generating revenue from other fringe platforms and far-right websites that are filled with extremism. In fact, Google’s ad network promotes traffic to multiple fringe platforms, monetizes visits to the platforms with ads to third-party sites including far-right websites, and then monetizes visits to those websites with ads to other sites.

Google’s ad network generates revenue and promotes traffic to these alternative far-right social media platforms

In addition to Rumble, Dewey’s analysis found that Truth Social, Gettr, Gab, and Parler — fringe platforms that boast minimal content moderation policies and allow hate speech, misinformation, and conspiracy theories — had over 124 million U.S. visits combined in the last year (from October 2021 through September 2022).

Google’s ad network is responsible for some of the traffic to the fringe platforms. In the last year, more than 46 percent of U.S. display ad traffic driving users to these fringe platforms came from Google Display Network ads. Of this traffic, 63 percent went to Rumble and 20 percent went to Gettr, while another 11 percent went to Gab, and six percent went to Parler.

Dewey traced the estimated sums of money that Gettr, Parler, Gab, and Rumble spent on U.S.-based advertising over the last year and found that they spent at least $397,000 and earned at least 108 million ad impressions combined. More than 65% of this advertising spend, or over $258,000, was through ad networks, including Google.

Here is an example of display ads used to drive new traffic to the fringe platforms:

Far-right platforms use Google’s ad network to monetize traffic

While some of the platforms do try to earn revenue by selling merchandise or offering paid account upgrades, advertising monetization is another source of income.

Dewey’s analysis found over 246,000 U.S. display ad visits monetizing the fringe platforms in the last year (from October 2021 through September 2022). Of these visits, Google Display Network made up more than 65 percent, with 220 advertisers using the network.

These advertisers on fringe platforms using Google Display Network include right-wing media outlets, such as Washington Examiner and The Epoch Times, and right-wing websites, such as the American Center for Law & Justice, Republican fundraising website WinRed, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. (Notably, Dewey found that the NRSC was the largest advertiser on Rumble over this last year, spending over $577,000 on ads on the platform.) These right-wing sites also used Google’s display ad network to monetize their sites.

Additionally, these large companies are advertising on fringe platforms through Google’s ad network:

  • Amazon
  • Lending Tree
  • Chevrolet
  • Subaru
  • Walmart
  • Ancestry.com

Google is providing a valuable source of revenue to these still relatively small and fringe far-right social media platforms that are allowing the spread of harmful content and extremism. They need Google far more than Google needs them.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Google, Amazon, Facebook Still Profit From Covid-19 Disinformation Sites

Google, Amazon, Facebook Still Profit From Covid-19 Disinformation Sites


Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Media Matters found that Google, Amazon, and Facebook own some of the most popular trackers present on a recently published list of websites devoted to COVID-19 misinformation. That means trackers from Facebook, Amazon, and Google are aiding these websites -- whether by placing or running ads, retargeting visitors, and/or providing visitor intelligence and behavior analytics -- and ultimately helping them reach an audience and make money.

In August, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab (DFR Lab) published a list of websites devoted to pushing COVID-19 misinformation. We used a tool to find the tracking software on these sites, yielding a list of companies including Google, Amazon, and Facebook. While not all trackers Media Matters detected monetize or collect data used to target readers, many of them do.

What Are Trackers?

Trackers are bits of code or script placed on a website that convey information to the site owner or a third party.

These trackers "link information about you from different sites, in order to build a profile, based on your browsing history." This data can then be sold or utilized by different parties to target specific information or products to users, such as with targeted ads or political campaigns. According to Forbes:

The rationale is simple: knowing what you click on and where you go informs ad networks about your needs and desires. When they know what you want, they can place ads in your path for those products or services.

That sounds fairly innocuous, and it can be, but the problem is that at scale — and on the open data market — you now have hundreds of virtual avatars in systems that are not under your control. They're profiles that match you to varying degrees: age, location, ethnicity, interests, and potentially much more personal information.

All trackers ultimately allow an entity to try to influence users, and it's done without their knowledge or consent. Not all trackers specifically collect browser histories and build profiles, but they do help a website reach more people and/or make money. If companies, such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon, ceased to serve these websites with their trackers, the websites would reach far fewer people and possibly disincentivize misinformation-for-profit operations.

Trackers Found On COVID-19 Misinformation Websites

Media Matters analyzed the COVID-19 misinformation websites identified by DFR Lab, using a Ghostery-based tool that detects "predefined fingerprints of known web tracking technologies," and found that the most common trackers used were owned by Google (which also owns DoubleClick), Amazon, Gravatar, Switch Concepts, WordPress Stats, and Facebook. We found 53 distinct trackers on 91 of the 146 websites listed by DFR Lab. Of these, we identified 448 total instances of a tracker appearing on a website, or an average of nearly five per website.

Amazon Associates, which provides a range of services like advertising and data collection that help target the best audience via behavioral analysis, appeared on 11 websites. Gravatar, a membership widget that allows users to engage one another, appeared on 36 websites. Facebook and Twitter widgets, which integrate with the social media platforms, appeared on 19 and five websites, respectively. Google, and the companies it owns, accounted for a whopping 161, or 36% of trackers found.

The top five companies providing trackers to COVID-19 misinformation websites include:

Tracker companiesTrackers detected
Google161
Gravatar44
Switch Concepts27
Facebook25
WordPress Stats
22

Over 50 percent of the total instances of trackers appearing on these websites were instances of ad trackers. Among the 254 instances of ad software we found, Google's company DoubleClick accounted for 86, and Switch Concepts accounted for 27. The Facebook Custom Audience advertising tracker appeared on six websites, which is especially troubling because of the precision with which Facebook may be used to target audiences.

The following table depicts the ad trackers and the number of times we detected them:

Ad trackersTracker count
Google's DoubleClick86
Switch Concepts27
Criteo18
AppNexus12
Amazon Associates11
Rubicon10
PubMatic10
OpenX10
BidSwitch10
Advertising.com10
Facebook Custom Audience6
Twitter Advertising2
Other42

Critically, a tracker's presence on a misinformation website doesn't tell us how much money each ad tracker generates. There may be multiple trackers on a site. Not all will generate equal profit, and some trackers might generate little profit. If we considered what percentage of a misinformation website's profit each vendor pays, we would almost certainly see Google's portion grow.

For example, according to the Global Disinformation Index, an organization that researches how mis- and disinformation are monetized, 77 percent of the profit from ads listed on a group of nearly 500 COVID-19 disinformation websites came from Google or a company owned by Google. This means Google may have paid as much as $19.2 million of the $25 million potentially earned by GDI's list of COVID-19 misinformation sites in 2020. (OpenX and Amazon paid out the second and third largest shares of revenues in the Global Disinformation Index report.) One website in the DFR list simply redirected to an Amazon listing rather than using an Amazon Associates tracker, which is an example of another way mis- and disinformation sites monetize and spread false claims.

Recently, NewsGuard, maker of a media literacy browser extension that provides trust ratings for users browsing the internet, published a special report titled Advertising on Misinformation, which explored how misinformation websites generate a substantial profit selling ad space. The report stated that "$2.6 billion in estimated advertising revenue [are] being sent to publishers of misinformation and disinformation each year by programmatic advertisers, including hundreds of millions in revenue supporting false health claims, anti-vaccine myths, election misinformation, partisan propaganda, and other forms of false news."

Why Exposure To Misinformation Matters

Trackers are one way companies can collect data that may help "target customized audiences, or publics, with strategic messaging across devices, channels, and contexts." A report from the Data & Society Research Institute warned that such data -- the same type collected by trackers -- can help build a digital influence machine, which can "identify and target weak points where groups and individuals are most vulnerable to strategic influence." Companies targeting internet users that also work with mis- and disinformation websites may connect the sites with a more receptive audience. And, while these companies profit, we have sadly learned, people who are exposed to COVID-19 misinformation may die preventable deaths as a result.

Why Corporations Are Leading On Vaccine Mandates

Why Corporations Are Leading On Vaccine Mandates

Public health is normally the responsibility of government officials and agencies. But the rampaging delta variant of COVID-19 has shown public institutions to be inadequate to the task. So it may be up to the private sector to do the heavy lifting.

Early in the pandemic, the urgent danger forced governors and mayors to take drastic actions that many citizens resented — closing businesses, issuing stay-at-home orders and mandating masks. But the arrival of vaccines sharply curtailed the virus, allowing life to return to near-normal. Even though this virulent variant has sent infections and hospitalizations soaring, public officials are leery of the opposition that new requirements might provoke.

President Joe Biden has shied away from putting any mandates on ordinary Americans, for obvious reasons. When he raised the idea of a door-to-door outreach initiative to encourage vaccinations, Republicans reacted as if the Gestapo were coming to drag people out of their beds. Treading lightly is part of Biden's attempt to restore calm after the nonstop turbulence of the previous four years.

He did issue an order requiring federal employees to either get vaccinated or wear masks and undergo regular testing. But that's not so controversial — if only because the GOP's anti-government zealots don't worry much about inconveniencing Washington bureaucrats.

The mandate will help stem the spread of the disease. But public employees make up just 15 percent of the U.S. workforce. The vast majority of Americans work in the private sector. Fortunately, capitalists can act with greater freedom and less political controversy than governments can.

Some of them are not waiting for brave statesmanship from politicians. A host of corporations have decided that when it comes to boosting vaccinations, they need more than gentle encouragement.

The Walt Disney Co. announced that all salaried and nonunion workers must be vaccinated. Walmart Inc. is requiring inoculations for everyone at its headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas. Google and Facebook are doing likewise at their U.S. campuses. Tyson Foods will insist that its 120,000 employees get their shots.

Chicago real estate firm Related Midwest is giving its employees a choice between getting a vaccination and getting a pink slip. United Airlines and Delta Air Lines Inc. will insist on shots for new hires. Hundreds of private (as well as public) colleges and universities have told students and faculty to be vaccinated in time for the fall term.

Some Republican officials are trumpeting their rejection of "vaccine passports," of the sort decreed by New York City for employees and customers of restaurants, bars, fitness centers and performance venues. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a bill forbidding businesses to ask customers for proof of vaccination. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas barred companies that get state funds from imposing such rules.

But even in the GOP, there seems to be no fervent desire to tell businesses what to do. Meddling in conditions of private employment would be conspicuously incompatible with the usual (and usually sound) conservative approach to economic matters.

That's why it's not likely to catch on, even in places where vaccine resistance is most rabid. Republican officeholders seldom embrace policies that antagonize the business community, which accounts for a lot of campaign contributions. Their customary view is that if workers don't like how their employers operate, they are welcome to exercise their God-given right to find another job.

Companies in red states are happily accustomed to operating without a lot of bossy-pants government. They also rarely have to deal with unions, which might push back on mandatory vaccinations.

In Democratic states, of course, policymakers have made a priority of getting the vaccine into people's arms, not indulging those who think it contains a microchip. Even diehard progressives might rather defer to the titans of industry if it means saving lives.

So if businesses are inclined to impose vaccine mandates, no one is going to stop them. And more companies are likely to impose them.

Most adults are already immunized, and many will think they deserve to be protected from irresponsible co-workers. In a labor market where many employers are having trouble finding workers, a vaccine requirement would probably attract more applicants than it would repel.

Elected officials may not want to insist that Americans take this simple step to protect others as well as themselves. But if they aren't willing to lead, they shouldn't stand in the way of those who are.

Follow Steve Chapman on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Former President Trump's suspended Twitter.

Experts Roast Trump’s ‘Incompetent' Lawsuit Against Social Media Giants

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Donald Trump, the former president, on Wednesday announced what he described as a class action lawsuit against "Big Tech," specifically Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and their CEOs as well. Trump for about 50 minutes ranted and railed about having been banned from the social media platforms, along with numerous other grievances.

Trump, his team, and the group supporting him, America First Policy Institute, are essentially claiming Trump's First Amendment rights were violated when he was banned from the two social media platforms, and because they have protection under federal law known as Section 230, they are an arm of the government, which experts say is false.

Legal experts are responding negatively to both the lawsuit itself and the attorneys who filed it.

Sam Brunson, Georgia Reithal Professor of Law, Loyola University Chicago, mocks their AOL email addresses and calls them "not competent."

He also calls the lawsuit a "LOLsuit."

Commercial, trademark, copyright, patent and trade secret litigation attorney Akiva Cohen calls the attorneys a "clown show."

And also mocks them for having AOL email addresses, among other things.

University of Michigan law professor, NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst, former US Attorney:

Brad Heath, DC reporter for Reuters on crime and justice:

Preston Byrne, partner at Anderson Kill Law Firm, Fellow at Adam Smith Institute: