Monday, September 27, 2021

Breaking: Google and Doubleclick Exposed as Major Financial Partners with Fake News Sites

Must read

FTC Testifies Before Congressional Subcommittee on Legislation to Restore Enforcement Authority

The Federal Trade Commission recently testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce on legislation to modify the FTC’s...

Breaking: Google and Doubleclick Exposed as Major Financial Partners with Fake News Sites

The top-10 most credible ad firms accounted for 66.7% of ad traffic on fake news websites, and another 55.6%% ad traffic on low-quality websites.

Inside Instagrams Affiliate Plan

Good news: Instagram has upped its game once again from a creators point of view. In the rush to make the platform...

Congressional Commerce Subcommittee Democrats Seek to Advance FTC Act 13(b) Reform Legislation

On May 27, 2021, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce sought to advance H.R. 2668, a...
Pesach Lattin
Pesach Lattinhttp://pacevegas.com
Pesach "Pace" Lattin is one of the top experts in interactive advertising, affiliate marketing. Pace Lattin is known for his dedication to ethics in marketing, and focus on compliance and fraud in the industry, and has written numerous articles for publications from MediaPost, ClickZ, ADOTAS and his own blogs.

A study conducted by the School of Information at the University of Michigan found that hundreds of fake news websites were dependent on prominent ad firms, including Google Doubleclick, for ad revenue.

The study, titled “Market Forces: Quantifying the Role of Top Credible Ad Servers in the Fake News Ecosystem”, by researchers Lia Bozarth and Ceren Budak, found that Google provided nearly 48% of all ad traffic on fake news websites.

They further found that the top-10 most credible ad firms accounted for 66.7% of ad traffic on fake news websites, and another 55.6%% ad traffic on low-quality websites.

The study also showed that while credible ad firms accounted for more than half of ad traffic on fake news websites, the rest of the ads were usually served by risky ad servers. The study provides a market-based solution to fighting fake news.

The researchers argue that while the fake and low-quality news publishers are heavily reliant on top credible ad servers like Google Doubleclick for ad traffic and revenue, in return they provide very little revenue share to the ad firms running these servers.

Considering the findings of the study, getting the ad servers to blacklist these websites would go a long way in cutting down their operation, while costing very less to the ad firms. Methodology To conduct the study, the researchers used a list of misleading websites, compiled in 2018 by Merrimack College media scholar Melissa Zimdars, and analysed the advertisements on these websites. Click here to view the list. While Zimdars had compiled 765 websites in her list, Bozarth and Budak removed the defunct websites, leaving them with 545 active sites to analyse.

The researchers also took into consideration a list of fake news publishers compiled by fact checking website PolitiFact, and removed 60% of the websites that were found to be defunct. These sites were further classified into three subtypes – traditional, fake or low-quality.

The duo then aggregated a list of known ad servers on the web using EasyList and EasyList Privacy, which lists most known ad servers for ad-blocking platforms. Using the Selenium Web-Driver API – a tool that simulates the browsing behaviour of humans, they identified the subset of ad servers on traditional, low-quality and fake news sites, along with the ads that were served. The researchers then determined the credibility of the ad servers using VirusTotal – a tool that aggregates antivirus softwares and online scan engines to look for viruses, along with a few publicly available malware domain lists. The ad servers were then classified as either credible or risky.

Out of the 565 ad servers analysed, approximately 78.8% were found to be credible, while the rest were deemed as risky.

 On a surprising note, the results indicated that traditional and low-quality news websites far surpassed fake news publishers in terms of number of ad servers on their respective websites. They also found that a larger percent of fake news websites are ad free, as compared to traditional news websites.


The second part of the study aimed to answer the question, “How concentrated is fake and other low-quality news publishers’ ad reliance on a small number of top credible ad servers?”

Some of the top ad servers featuring in their list were Google Doubleclick, Google Syndication, Earnify, Lockerdome, AddThis, GumGum, Outbrain, and Zemanta.

The study then ranked the top-10 credible ad servers for traditional, fake and low-quality publishers according to (i) weighted domain share, and (ii) weighted ad traffic share. The results of the weighted domain share analysis indicated that these credible ad servers played a substantial role in serving ad revenue to a large portion of the fake news sites.

6.7% of all fake domains were found to be entirely dependent on these ad servers, and were sure to perish if they were blacklisted by the servers.

The analysis of weighted ad traffic confirmed that these top ad servers played a critical role in providing revenue streams to shady news publishers. 66.7% of the ad traffic on fake news websites were provided by the top 10 ad credible servers.

The study also revealed that fake and low-quality publishers were significantly more likely to partner with dubious and risky ad servers, thus exposing visitors to potential security and privacy risks.

The last part of the study looked at how much it would cost the ad servers to blacklist fake and low-quality news sites, to assess the feasibility of blacklisting these sites by the ad servers. In order to answer this question, the researchers matched each ad server to its company using the portal Whois.

Furthermore, each company’s aggregated weighted ad traffic for fake, traditional and low-quality news sites was determined, and their ad revenue was estimated using a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

The researchers obtained the 2018 ad revenue information for the advertising firms from press releases, financial statements, market research firms or company profilers, and computed the respective annual ad revenue from each group of news publishers – traditional, fake and low-quality. The study revealed that most of the revenue generated were through traditional news publishers, and that fake and low-quality news websites contributed little to the firms’ overall ad revenue. Solutions Taking into consideration the findings from the study, the researchers provide a market-based solution to fighting fake news.

They make a compelling case – while fake and low-quality publishers are heavily reliant on the credible ad firms for ad traffic and revenue, in turn they provide very little revenue share to the ad firms.

Considering the implications of the study, blacklisting these websites would thus go a long way in shutting them down, or greatly cutting down their operation, while costing very less to the ad firms. The researchers argue that pushing these shady websites to low-quality ad servers would provide additional visual cues to visitors that the site and ads are not trustworthy.

- Advertisement -

More articles

1 Comment

  1. It’s important to have an “agreed upon” definition of fake news sites and separately, low-quality sites. If it is more based on opinion that defines what a fake news site is then there is a big hole in this research. Keep in mind that we are just finding out that the covid-19 virus looks like it probably has come straight from the Wuhan Virology Lab although many news outlets such as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS had stated otherwise in their reporting for over a year and some of them claimed that other news outlets which asked the question if the virus could have come from the lab instead of the wet market” got hammered and called those news outlets as “fake news”…and now it is looking like it the few news outlets that simply questioned orthodoxy is correct while the others are wrong. There are other similar situations that go on in which orthodoxy is questioned/challenged and proves to be the case, but this is the latest incident.

    Again, it’s important to have an “agreed upon” definition of fake news sites and separately, low-quality sites. If it is more based on opinion that defines what a fake news site is then there is a big hole in this research.

What's your opinion?

- Advertisement -

Latest article

FTC Testifies Before Congressional Subcommittee on Legislation to Restore Enforcement Authority

The Federal Trade Commission recently testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce on legislation to modify the FTC’s...

Breaking: Google and Doubleclick Exposed as Major Financial Partners with Fake News Sites

The top-10 most credible ad firms accounted for 66.7% of ad traffic on fake news websites, and another 55.6%% ad traffic on low-quality websites.

Inside Instagrams Affiliate Plan

Good news: Instagram has upped its game once again from a creators point of view. In the rush to make the platform...

Congressional Commerce Subcommittee Democrats Seek to Advance FTC Act 13(b) Reform Legislation

On May 27, 2021, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce sought to advance H.R. 2668, a...

Feds Charges First Person Under Covid19 Scam Laws

A St. Louis-based chiropractor became the first person charged under a new federal law aimed at protecting Americans from fraudulent COVID-19 claims. Eric...