CivicHaven

Category: Misinformation

  • Advertising in the Swamp: How Ad-Tech Monetizes Disinformation Media

    Advertising in the Swamp: How Ad-Tech Monetizes Disinformation Media

    Ad-tech giants typically promote practices surrounding so-called “brand safety.” But programmatic ad networks provide the primary financial foundations keeping junk news and misinformation websites in business. As of 2021, large brands spent an estimated $2.6 billion on programmatic advertising published by disinformation platforms. With the explosion of generative AI, this number is likely much higher today.

    NewsGuard’s Reality Check recently published a report exposing the gap between ad-tech PR promises and programmatic realities (“These Ad-Tech Giants Claim to Protect Advertisers’ Brands. They Can’t Even Protect Their Own”). NewsGuard shows how major ad exchanges, such as Google, Amazon, Adobe, and Yahoo, post their own ads on disinformation websites. The ads appear in and monetize untrustworthy digital media that promote conspiracy theories, health disinformation, and pro-Kremlin propaganda.

    The Illusion of Exclusion

    Ad platforms market sophisticated blocklists and strict publisher standards to reassure Fortune 500 advertisers. Here are some examples of the types of exclusions the advertisers promote:  

    Google Ads, Display & Video 360 use Content Theme Exclusions allowing its ad buyers to automatically blacklist placements next to specific verticals, such as “News (sensitive)” (crimes, controversial social issues), politics, religion, and “Health (source undetermined).” Google also offers filters that automatically cut off sites featuring extreme profanity, graphic violence, or recent tragic events. Advertisers can upload custom URL blacklists and block search queries associated with fraud, terrorism, or unvetted news sources. 
    Yahoo DSP (Demand-Side Platform) has a misinformation and deception ban. It specifically bans monetization for domains pushing election conspiracy theories, fraudulent claims, or imposter media layouts designed to mimic legitimate news outlets. Yahoo also uses inflammatory content exclusions intended to block ads from running alongside sites that leverage fear, violent tragedies, or inflammatory language meant to incite hate or division.
    Adobe Advertising Cloud has a tiered globally blocked sites list. Adobe employs category filters to block sensitive topics like politics, religion, or specific competitors. Adobe also filters out fake system alerts, deceptive URL redirects, and misleading landing pages. And Adobe enforces mandatory exclusions of domains promoting hate speech, unverified medical claims, harassment, or illegal acts.
    Amazon DSP has an AI and deepfake ban as well as content adjacency policies. Amazon also automatically restricts ad serving across third-party supply networks in sensitive categories like accidents, disasters, arms and ammunition, and hate speech. 

    Ads in Practice

    In practice, NewsGuard’s audit discovered thousands of blue-chip brand ads served directly alongside toxic content, including election falsehoods and unvetted medical claims on “red-rated” unreliable sites. These are sites that NewsGuard rates as not consistently adhering to basic standards of accuracy, accountability, and transparency. In sum:

    “So far in 2026, NewsGuard … identified programmatic advertising for 45 major technology brands appearing next to 162 articles advancing provably false claims identified in NewsGuard’s False Claim Fingerprints database that were published on news websites.”

    – NewsGuard

    Among these are 45 ads for products sold by Google, Amazon, Yahoo, and Adobe. Examples include these:

    • An ad for the Google Chrome browser ran next to an article suggesting black seed oil as a cure for cancer.
    • An ad for Amazon’s Audible was published adjacent to false claims about Joe Biden authorizing force against U.S. citizens leading up to the 2024 election.
    • An Amazon Fire TV ad ran beside an article falsely stating Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill designating p#doph%ilia as a “sexual orientation”.
    • Yahoo Search ads appeared on a pro-Kremlin site publishing disinformation on Ukrainian generals.
    • Adobe Acrobat Pro ads ran next to an article claiming the 2020 U.S. presidential election was “stolen.”

    CivicHaven contacted the press offices of Google, Amazon, Yahoo, and Adobe. They were asked for comment or to explain what improvements they may be developing. They did not respond.

    The Incentive Problem

    Programmatic advertising operates as an automated, opaque middleman pipeline that tends to prioritize programmatic scale over publisher integrity:

    • Double-Dipping Revenue: Ad networks collect transaction fees from the brand buying the placement and the publisher serving it. This creates an inherent conflict of interest regarding ad bans on low-quality, high-traffic sites.
    • Unsupervised AI Content: The issue is also complicated by the proliferation of Unreliable AI-Generated News (UAINS) sites: content farms operating with minimal human oversight. Many of these sites churn out cheap clickbait specifically engineered to host ad scripts from major ad exchanges.

    Links for a deeper dive 🤿

    Keyword Bluntness vs. Real Credibility

    To date, brand-safety verification relies heavily on blunt keyword blocking, meaning the blacklisting of words like “attack” or “virus”. The problem is that such bans frequently demonetize legitimate, high-quality news outlets covering actual events. Meanwhile, sophisticated misinformation domains, which carefully format propaganda to look like mainstream news, easily bypass these surface-level filters to harvest ad dollars. 

    To fix this, ad-tech providers will need to secure complete transparency from advertisers. The ad servers must shift budget allocation toward domain-level credibility ratings rather than superficial keyword filters. Until then, ad-tech intermediaries will continue cashing in from both ends of the supply chain while inadvertently subsidizing the disinformation ecosystem.

    Basic transparency can go a long way as well. Ad-tech platforms should provide advertisers with improved transparency about where their ads appear could help reduce advertising on disinformation websites. Platforms could also provide clearer and more trackable advertising metrics on misinformation outlets. 🟦

    Image: AI-assisted, Louis Caravella x Gemini.

    Article opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of CivicHaven.

    Sign up to access early models of the CivicHaven chat assistant.

  • Truth vs. Misinformation: What spreads more?

    Truth vs. Misinformation: What spreads more?

    Today we take a look at a new study on how truths and misinformation are received by the public: 

    “Truth Over Falsehood: Experimental Evidence on What Persuades and Spreads”, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2026.1 

    Study Summary

    The study investigates a classic philosophical debate: whether truth naturally triumphs over falsehood in a “marketplace of ideas,” as John Milton explored (e.g. “A Letter Concerning Toleration”), or whether the rapid spread of online misinformation suggests the opposite.

    To test this, the researchers conducted four experiments with 4,607 participants, comparing messages generated by both humans and Large Language Models (LLMs). The experiments were performed in a controlled environment designed to eliminate the confounding effects of social media algorithms and bot amplification.

    Key Findings

    • Superiority of Truth: Messages intended to be truthful were consistently more persuasive and more likely to be shared than messages designed to be false.
    • Drivers of Persuasion: Perceived truthfulness was the primary factor that made a message persuasive.
    • Drivers of Sharing: While truth mattered, positive emotion and social engagement had a bigger influence over the decision to share a message. This indicates that social connection is a priority when sharing information.
    • The Competitive Edge: The authors conclude that truth holds an inherent advantage in a controlled marketplace of ideas wherein external technological manipulations are removed.

    Main Takeaways

    The study contextualizes these findings within modern information environments and classic psychological theory.

    1. Reclaiming the “Marketplace of Ideas”

    The authors argue that their results provide experimental support for the Miltonian ideal. When human psychology is the primary filter—undisturbed by algorithmic biases—truthful information tends to outperform misinformation in both its ability to change minds and its likelihood of being passed on. This suggests that misinformation may be a symptom of current platform designs rather than an inherent human preference for falsehood.

    2. Persuasion vs. Transmission

    A helpful insight in the discussion is the divergence between why we believe something and why we share it:

    • Epistemic vs. Social Goals: People use truth as their primary metric when deciding what to believe (an epistemic goal).
    • Social Connection: However, when sharing information, people prioritize social connection. Messages that evoke positive emotions or facilitate social bonding are shared more frequently. This is even the case when their truth value is misleading or slightly lower than factual.

      The authors explain, “while people tend to prioritize the truth as a default, they are willing to sacrifice it to some extent for the sake of creating more engaging messages, as per the phrase ‘never let the truth get in the way of a good story.’”

    3. Humans vs. AI

    The study found that these patterns held true whether humans or LLMs (like GPT-3.5) wrote the messages. This suggests that the “signatures” of truth and persuasion are robust enough that AI can replicate them. Further, humans respond to those signals in a similar way regardless of whether the source is human or AI.

    4. Limitations and Future Directions

    • Controlled vs. Real-World: The authors acknowledge that their experiments prioritized “internal validity” (control) over “ecological validity” (real-world complexity). They warn that in the real world, other factors affect how messages are received including the communication channel, information frequency, perceived consensus, and audience characteristics, particularly their political identity.
    • The Role of Algorithms: The discussion emphasizes that while truth tends to be preferred in their experiments, the real-world dominance of misinformation likely stems from social media preferences. This means the algorithms prioritize high-arousal, often divisive content, which may inadvertently suppress the advantages of truthful messages.

    Final Thoughts

    The “Truth Over Falsehood” study provides a hopeful counterpoint to the idea that humans are post-truth. It suggests that we are actually quite good at identifying and being moved by the truth, provided that the systems we use to communicate aren’t actively tilted to favor the spectacular or the false. 🟩

    1. Fay, N., Ransom, K. J., Walker, B., Howe, P. D. L., Perfors, A., & Kashima, Y. (2026). Truth over falsehood: Experimental evidence on what persuades and spreads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(4), 684–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000467 ↩︎

    Images: AI-assisted, Louis Caravella x Gemini.

    Article opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of CivicHaven.

    Sign up to access early models of the CivicHaven chat assistant.

  • How We’re Being Manipulated Online (and How to Fight Back)

    How We’re Being Manipulated Online (and How to Fight Back)

    Denmark’s 3-step method

    If you’re reading this, you probably think of yourself as a savvy digital citizen. Most of us can spot the more obvious online scams and misinformation. But what if the manipulation isn’t coming from a clumsy scammer, but rather from sophisticated actors trying to change how you see the world?

    Earlier today, the Danish Agency for Social Security launched a campaign called “Who shapes your opinions?” It’s a fascinating breakdown of how foreign powers utilize misinformation campaigns to leverage our own psychology against us. It’s not just about “fake news” but about a deeper understanding of human nature and communication. 

    Many nations, including large countries such as Russia and China, have state-operated media or heavily regulated media. And we’re currently witnessing a media blackout or near blackout in Iran, for example.

    While the Danish campaign’s press release does not mention the United States by name, the effort is easily seen as a response to the U.S. government in particular. Efforts by Washington to annex Greenland, a Danish territory, have been met with concern in Denmark and the NATO countries generally. 

    “Protect yourself and our democracy by being critical of what you read and hear. The harder you are to manipulate, the stronger we are.”

    Danish Agency for Social Security

    So here are some of the most eye-opening highlights from the Danish government’s guide. 

    1. Emotional Hijacking

    Have you ever seen a headline that made your blood boil or left you feeling deeply anxious? That’s not an accident. One of the primary tools of manipulation is the emotional hook. 

    Misinformation feeds off high-arousal emotions like anger, fear, and indignation. When we are emotional, our brain logic can take a backseat to our emotions, making us much more likely to hit share without checking the facts.

    Since social media algorithms are designed to reward engagement, the more provocative a story is, the farther it generally spreads. If a post makes you want to scream or cry, that’s your signal to slow down and evaluate what you’re consuming.

    In addition to self-defense, the Danish government says critical reading also helps protect democracy itself: “Protect yourself and our democracy by being critical of what you read and hear. The harder you are to manipulate, the stronger we are.”

    2.  Repetition’s Insidious Power

    Purveyors of misinformation know that simply hearing a lie multiple times makes people more likely to believe it’s true. This psychological phenomenon is called the “illusory truth effect.”

    Manipulators use bot networks and fake profiles to repeat the same narrative across different platforms. So when you see the same so-called fact mentioned in various places, like a comment, a shared post, and a meme, for example, your brain begins to flag it as credible. 

    Media manipulators also use a practice called micro-targeting, meaning tailoring stories to fit the specific values and biases of different groups. By telling us exactly what we already believe and want to hear, they bypass our natural skepticism.

    3. “Trusted Friend” Traps

    This is perhaps the most devious tactic of online misinformation peddlers. A misleading story is far more effective when it comes from someone you know. 

    When a stranger posts something radical, you’re likely to ignore the information or find it suspicious. But when your aunt or a former colleague shares it, you’re more receptive and your guard drops. Foreign actors count on these “ordinary people,” as in non-journalists, to do their heavy lifting. 

    By getting well-meaning users to share fabricated content, agitators cloak their deception in a layer of social trust. Once a story is circulating within a friend group, it becomes much harder to debunk.

    4. Deepfakes

    The Vær Kritisk (Be Critical) guide also highlights the evolving role of technology, specifically Artificial Intelligence. We are past the era of poorly Photoshopped images. With AI, manipulators can now create realistic videos, voices, and photos that depict people and behaviors that never took place in the tangible, non-digital world. 

    These deepfakes are designed to go viral, often showing public figures saying or doing things that spark outrage. In the digital world, seeing is no longer believing.

    How to Stay Critical: The 3-Step Filter

    The good news? The media-consuming public isn’t powerless. The Danish government’s guide suggests a simple three-step approach to protect your digital well-being:

    • Stop: When you encounter a story that triggers a strong reaction, pause. Give yourself time to shift from your emotional response to a logical evaluation of the claims. 
    • Think Twice: Ask yourself: Who, if anyone, benefits if I share this? Does this story contribute to a constructive dialogue or is it just provoking division?
    • Check the Source: Is this from a recognized news outlet with editorial standards or, for example, a little-known source with suspicious or unclear authorship? Check if the story is being reported by other, more reliable sources.

    As these steps suggest, digital manipulation isn’t just a tech problem but a human one. And in online spaces, particularly those that are highly unregulated, the public can’t expect the tech platforms themselves to fact check accurately and thoroughly. 

    Of course, the 3-step method is more of an outline. Carefully checking the news media for accuracy can be a more complicated and intensive effort.

    But by understanding the psychological tricks used to influence us, we can reclaim some level of control over our social feeds and sources. More importantly, knowledge helps reduce the spread of misinformation and helps protect online and offline communities from potential conflicts.  🟦

    AI-assisted Image: Louis Caravella x Gemini.

    Sign up for emails to access early models of the CivicHaven chat application. Article opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of CivicHaven.