Are brands unwittingly financing fake news?

Stewart Morrison, managing director, MEA of FirmDecisions. (Supplied)
Short Url
Updated 07 October 2021
Follow

Are brands unwittingly financing fake news?

  • Over 4000 brands, including Pepsi, Starbucks, Nike & Amazon were found to have bought ads on misinformation websites

DUBAI: Last month, it was revealed that many of the world’s biggest brands have been found to advertise on digital sites containing COVID-19 misinformation.

An analysis of programmatic advertising data conducted by NewsGuard and Comscore found that nearly $2.6 billion in estimated advertising revenue is being sent to publishers of misinformation and disinformation each year by programmatic advertisers.

Over 4,000 brands, including Pepsi, Starbucks, Comcast, Verizon, Marriott, and even the CDC, were found to have bought ads on websites publishing misinformation about COVID-19, according to NewsGuard.

An analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism also found that brands such as Nike, Amazon and Ted Baker, have been advertising on websites spreading COVID-19 misinformation. “These ads are placed through the ‘opaque by design’ digital advertising market, which is expected to be worth more than $455 billion this year,” the report stated.

The nature of programmatic advertising is what causes ads to be placed on misinformation websites because of the lack of transparency regarding where the ad is being placed.

Money flows to sites hosting harmful content because the system of bidding on ads means these sites get mixed in with other, more benign ones, Dr. Augustine Fou, an independent ad fraud researcher and former employee of advertising agency Omnicom said in the bureau’s report.

Arab News spoke to Stewart Morrison, managing director, MEA of FirmDecisions to better understand how brands and their agencies can prevent this from happening.

Firstly, how does something like this happen wherein a brand’s ad is placed on a site containing fake news and misinformation?

“In order to understand how brands end up advertising on fake or COVID conspiracy sites, it is first worth understanding how brands buy digital advertising. There are two ways in which digital inventory can be bought:

Directly with the publisher (non-biddable) where brands negotiate either themselves or via their agency to buy advertising space directly with the publisher or their representative in a private marketplace. This accounts for about one-third of digital ad spend.

“Using a trading platform called a DSP or demand-side platform by the brand or the media-buying agency to bid for media in online auctions. These work in a similar way to stock market trading platforms — the buyer logs in, sets criteria such as target demographic, interests, device, time of day, month, budget, etc. The DSP connects to the advertising inventory exchanges (where the publishers load their inventory to be purchased) and any time a person who fits the target criteria opens a publisher’s webpage, there is an instantaneous auction and the winning bidder serves an advert to an individual’s phone or desktop browser and the publisher gets paid. The aim of this type of advertising is better targeting and cost-effectiveness.

“Naturally, the websites in the exchange need to have legitimate visitors, which can be challenging, as there are millions of sites with fake or pointless content with no real people visiting, created with the sole purpose of essentially duping the DSPs into buying ads on their pages hereby earning them money. These are mixed in with legitimate websites in ad exchanges and because of the tools used by the fraudsters, the trading platforms can find it difficult to distinguish the difference.”

How similar or different is this issue from the brand safety issue that happened a few years ago?

“Brand safety issues have been ongoing for years as fraudsters and bad actors become more sophisticated. Digital media ad fraud cost the global marketing industry an estimated $19 billion in 2018 and is expected to reach $50 billion by 2025 — that’s between 5 to 10 percent of all ad digital spend.

“In the MENA region, the digital ad spend estimate is between $1.5 and $3 billion with 30 to 50 percent of digital ads being bought programmatically, such as via an online media inventory trading platform.

“With the latter, brands have three main challenges:

“The first challenge for brands is to make sure that their adverts are served on web pages that have real visitors. Fraudsters have sophisticated teams of people who create websites and then use bots to visit the sites thousands of times to make them look legitimate and popular. The ad inventory of these sites is then made available on ad exchanges.  

“Once the ads are served to a website with real visitors, the second challenge is to make sure their ads are ‘viewable.’ The Media Ratings Council considers an ad to have been ‘viewed’ if 50 percent of the pixels are in focus for 1 second or in the case of videos, 2 seconds is viewed. Additionally, advertisers also do not want their ads displayed off the bottom of the webpage where they are not seen.

“The third challenge is making sure the ads are shown in a brand-safe environment, which is to ensure the ads are not displayed alongside harmful content such as political propaganda or in this case COVID-19 conspiracy sites displaying false information that does not align with the brand’s values.”

What's the impact of such advertising on brand perception? 

“If ads are to have the desired impact on their consumers and drive meaningful customer conversion, they need to appear in the right context. Research by the Audience Project shows that one-third of consumers across multiple markets believe that ads appearing in a relevant context have a positive impact on brand perception. On the other hand, most consumers say that brands appearing in non-safe environments have a negative impact on perception.

“Customers may have little understanding of the complexities of buying digital advertising, and the websites that brands use to advertise help shape customers’ perceptions. This is becoming an even larger issue now with brands considering whether even legitimate publishers align to their values on sustainability, racism, and equality before spending money with them.”

How can brands and agencies prevent this from happening?

“Developing a list of preferred target ‘white list’ sites and ‘black list’ sites is a good starting point. This helps to guide the target media purchases and steer clear of sites that are fraudulent or do not align with the brand’s values. 

“The second is to audit the agencies and their media buying processes by reviewing the list of sites where the agency has spent the brand’s money and investigate. It is not uncommon during our contract compliance audits of agencies to uncover spend on sites that are defined as ‘unknown’ or ‘unpermissioned’ where we could not identify where the ads had actually run.  

“Brands should deploy technical tools to ensure sites can be identified by their tags and legitimacy established.”

What are the factors brands need to keep in mind when signing programmatic media contracts with their agencies?

“Brands need to make sure they have fully transparent contracts with their media agencies identifying all the intermediaries in the digital supply chain and what they cost and ensure this is defined in their agency agreements.

“All too often we see brand-agency contracts, which are ‘non-disclosed’ where the brand just pays a fee and has no visibility on any of the intermediaries or costs. This extends beyond their media agency or the programmatic platform used — they need to know what ad verification tools are used to mitigate fraud, what exchanges ads are being bought from, what data management platforms are used, and at what cost. 

“With everyone in the digital supply chain motivated by commissions or fees, they need to be held accountable if brands’ money is spent on fraudulent sites or sites that do not conform to their values. 

“Many advertisers now conduct media audits to ensure full transparency and performance of their media budgets and learn where the waste is in order to make sure every dollar reaches a real customer browsing a site that reflects the brand’s values.”


Media watchdogs raise alarm over Al Jazeera ban, call for it to be lifted

Updated 06 May 2024
Follow

Media watchdogs raise alarm over Al Jazeera ban, call for it to be lifted

  • Israel’s decision sets ‘dangerous precedent,’ Committee to Protect Journalists says
  • News channel vows to continue Gaza coverage, will pursue ‘every legal step’ to fight block

LONDON: Media watchdogs have condemned Israel’s decision to block Al Jazeera, raising concerns about the erosion of media freedom in the country, especially amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists said the government’s decision set a dangerous precedent for other international media outlets operating in Israel.

“CPJ condemns the closure of Al Jazeera’s office in Israel and the blocking of the channel’s websites,” program director Carlos Martinez de la Serna said in New York.

Israel should allow Al Jazeera and all international media outlets to operate freely, particularly during wartime, he said.

Israel’s executive authority voted on Sunday to pass a law allowing the temporary shutdown of a foreign channel’s broadcasts if the content was deemed to be a threat to security during the ongoing war.

Soon after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the decision, reports emerged of raids on the offices of the Qatar-backed broadcaster.

The Foreign Press Association released a statement condemning the decision as a “dark day for the media” and accused Israel of joining “a dubious club of authoritarian governments” by banning the broadcasts.

The UN’s Human Rights office also urged the Israeli government to reverse the ban

“A free & independent media is essential to ensuring transparency & accountability. Now, even more so given tight restrictions on reporting from Gaza,” it said on X.

There has also been criticism of the decision from within the country, with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel filing a request to the Supreme Court to overturn the ban.

The news came amid a yearslong campaign waged against Al Jazeera by the Israeli government, which accuses it of anti-Israeli bias and “being a mouthpiece for Hamas.”

The broadcaster rejected the claims and said it would “pursue every legal step” to fight the decision.

Al Jazeera also vowed to continue its coverage from Gaza, as it remains one of the few networks with a strong presence on the ground, as foreign journalists are banned from entering the Strip without Israeli army supervision.

The network accused Israel of deliberately targeting its staff in an attempt to silence them.

“Israel’s suppression of free press to cover up its crimes by killing and arresting journalists has not deterred us from performing our duty,” it said in its response to Sunday’s ban.

Despite the ruling, the channel remains accessible through Facebook in Israel.


‘Everybody is vulnerable’: Fake US school audio stokes AI alarm

Updated 06 May 2024
Follow

‘Everybody is vulnerable’: Fake US school audio stokes AI alarm

  • The clip, which left administrators of Pikesville High School fielding a flood of angry calls and threats, underscores the ease with which widely available AI and editing tools can be misused to impersonate celebrities and everyday citizens alike

WASHINGTON: A fabricated audio clip of a US high school principal prompted a torrent of outrage, leaving him battling allegations of racism and anti-Semitism in a case that has sparked new alarm about AI manipulation.
Police charged a disgruntled staff member at the Maryland school with manufacturing the recording that surfaced in January — purportedly of principal Eric Eiswert ranting against Jews and “ungrateful Black kids” — using artificial intelligence.
The clip, which left administrators of Pikesville High School fielding a flood of angry calls and threats, underscores the ease with which widely available AI and editing tools can be misused to impersonate celebrities and everyday citizens alike.
In a year of major elections globally, including in the United States, the episode also demonstrates the perils of realistic deepfakes as the law plays catch-up.
“You need one image to put a person into a video, you need 30 seconds of audio to clone somebody’s voice,” Hany Farid, a digital forensics expert at the University of California, Berkeley, told AFP.
“There’s almost nothing you can do unless you hide under a rock.
“The threat vector has gone from the Joe Bidens and the Taylor Swifts of the world to high school principals, 15-year-olds, reporters, lawyers, bosses, grandmothers. Everybody is now vulnerable.”
After the official probe, the school’s athletic director, Dazhon Darien, 31, was arrested late last month over the clip.
Charging documents say staffers at Pikesville High School felt unsafe after the audio emerged. Teachers worried the campus was bugged with recording devices while abusive messages lit up Eiswert’s social media.
The “world would be a better place if you were on the other side of the dirt,” one X user wrote to Eiswert.
Eiswert, who did not respond to AFP’s request for comment, was placed on leave by the school and needed security at his home.

When the recording hit social media in January, boosted by a popular Instagram account whose posts drew thousands of comments, the crisis thrust the school into the national spotlight.
The audio was amplified by activist DeRay McKesson, who demanded Eiswert’s firing to his nearly one million followers on X. When the charges surfaced, he conceded he had been fooled.
“I continue to be concerned about the damage these actions have caused,” said Billy Burke, executive director of the union representing Eiswert, referring to the recording.
The manipulation comes as multiple US schools have struggled to contain AI-enabled deepfake pornography, leading to harassment of students amid a lack of federal legislation.
Scott Shellenberger, the Baltimore County state’s attorney, said in a press conference the Pikesville incident highlights the need to “bring the law up to date with the technology.”
His office is prosecuting Darien on four charges, including disturbing school activities.

Investigators tied the audio to the athletic director in part by connecting him to the email address that initially distributed it.
Police say the alleged smear-job came in retaliation for a probe Eiswert opened in December into whether Darien authorized an illegitimate payment to a coach who was also his roommate.
Darien made searches for AI tools via the school’s network before the audio came out, and he had been using “large language models,” according to the charging documents.
A University of Colorado professor who analyzed the audio for police concluded it “contained traces of AI-generated content with human editing after the fact.”
Investigators also consulted Farid, writing that the California expert found it was “manipulated, and multiple recordings were spliced together using unknown software.”
AI-generated content — and particularly audio, which experts say is particularly difficult to spot — sparked national alarm in January when a fake robocall posing as Biden urged New Hampshire residents not to vote in the state’s primary.
“It impacts everything from entire economies, to democracies, to the high school principal,” Farid said of the technology’s misuse.
Eiswert’s case has been a wake-up call in Pikesville, revealing how disinformation can roil even “a very tight-knit community,” said Parker Bratton, the school’s golf coach.
“There’s one president. There’s a million principals. People are like: ‘What does this mean for me? What are the potential consequences for me when someone just decides they want to end my career?’“
“We’re never going to be able to escape this story.”
 

 


Lawsuit against Meta asks if Facebook users have right to control their feeds using external tools

Updated 06 May 2024
Follow

Lawsuit against Meta asks if Facebook users have right to control their feeds using external tools

  • The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, is a browser extension that would let Facebook users unfollow friends, groups and pages and empty their newsfeed — the stream of posts, photos and videos that can keep them scrolling endlessly

Do social media users have the right to control what they see — or don’t see — on their feeds?
A lawsuit filed against Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. is arguing that a federal law often used to shield Internet companies from liability also allows people to use external tools to take control of their feed — even if that means shutting it off entirely.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Meta Platforms on behalf of an Amherst professor who wants to release a tool that enables users to unfollow all the content fed to them by Facebook’s algorithm.
The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, is a browser extension that would let Facebook users unfollow friends, groups and pages and empty their newsfeed — the stream of posts, photos and videos that can keep them scrolling endlessly. The idea is that without this constant, addicting stream of content, people might use it less. If the past is any indication, Meta will not be keen on the idea.
A UK developer, Louis Barclay, released a similar tool, called Unfollow Everything, but he took it down in 2021, fearing a lawsuit after receiving a cease-and-desist letter and a lifetime Facebook ban from Meta, then called Facebook Inc.
With Wednesday’s lawsuit, Ethan Zuckerman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, is trying to beat Meta to the legal punch to avoid getting sued by the social media giant over the browser extension.
“The reason it’s worth challenging Facebook on this is that right now we have very little control as users over how we use these networks,” Zuckerman said in an interview. “We basically get whatever controls Facebook wants. And that’s actually pretty different from how the Internet has worked historically.” Just think of email, which lets people use different email clients, or different web browsers, or anti-tracking software for people who don’t want to be tracked.
Meta declined to comment.
The lawsuit filed in federal court in California centers on a provision of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which is often used to protect Internet companies from liability for things posted on their sites. A separate clause, though, provides immunity to software developers who create tools that “filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
The lawsuit, in other words, asks the court to determine whether Facebook users’ news feed falls into the category of objectionable material that they should be able to filter out in order to enjoy the platform.
“Maybe CDA 230 provides us with this right to build tools to make your experience of Facebook or other social networks better and to give you more control over them,” said Zuckerman, who teaches public policy, communication and information at Amherst. “And you know what? If we’re able to establish that, that could really open up a new sphere of research and a new sphere of development. You might see people starting to build tools to make social networks work better for us.”
While Facebook does allow users to manually unfollow everything, the process can be cumbersome with hundreds or even thousands of friends, groups and businesses that people often follow.
Zuckerman also wants to study how turning off the news feed affects people’s experience on Facebook. Users would have to agree to take part in the study — using the browser tool does not automatically enroll participants.
“Social media companies can design their products as they want to, but users have the right to control their experience on social media platforms, including by blocking content they consider to be harmful,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute. “Users don’t have to accept Facebook as it’s given to them. The same statute that immunizes Meta from liability for the speech of its users gives users the right to decide what they see on the platform.”


Netanyahu’s Cabinet votes to permanently close Al Jazeera offices in Israel

Updated 05 May 2024
Follow

Netanyahu’s Cabinet votes to permanently close Al Jazeera offices in Israel

  • Vote comes amid deeply strained ties between Israel and the channel, which have worsened during the war against Hamas

TEL AVIV: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that his government has voted unanimously to shutter the offices of the Qatar-owned broadcaster Al Jazeera in Israel.
Netanyahu announced the decision on X, formerly Twitter. Details on when it would go into effect or whether it was permanent or temporary were not immediately clear.
The vote comes amid deeply strained ties between Israel and the channel, which have worsened during the war against Hamas.
It also comes as Qatar is helping to broker a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas in the war in Gaza.


Warren Buffett says AI may be better for scammers than society. And he’s seen how

Updated 05 May 2024
Follow

Warren Buffett says AI may be better for scammers than society. And he’s seen how

  • The billionaire investing guru predicted scammers will seize on the technology, and may do more harm with it than society can wring good

OMAHA, Nebraska: Warren Buffett cautioned the tens of thousands of shareholders who packed an arena for his annual meeting that artificial intelligence scams could become “the growth industry of all time.”
Doubling down on his cautionary words from last year, Buffett told the throngs he recently came face to face with the downside of AI. And it looked and sounded just like him. Someone made a fake video of Buffett, apparently convincing enough that the so-called Oracle of Omaha himself said he could imagine it tricking him into sending money overseas.
The billionaire investing guru predicted scammers will seize on the technology, and may do more harm with it than society can wring good.
“As someone who doesn’t understand a damn thing about it, it has enormous potential for good and enormous potential for harm and I just don’t know how that plays out,” he said.
EARNINGS BEFORE MUSINGS
The day started early Saturday with Berkshire Hathaway announcing a steep drop in earnings as the paper value of its investments plummeted and it pared its Apple holdings. The company reported a $12.7 billion profit, or $8.825 per Class A share, in first the quarter, down 64 percent from $35.5 billion, or $24,377 per A share a year ago.
But Buffett encourages investors to pay more attention to the conglomerate’s operating earnings from the companies it actually owns. Those jumped 39 percent to $11.222 billion, or $7,796.47 per Class A share, led by insurance companies’ performance.
None of it that got in the way of the fun.
Throngs flooded the arena to buy up Squishmallows of Buffett and former Vice Chairman Charlie Munger, who died last fall. The event attracts investors from all over the world and is unlike any other company meeting. Those attending for the first time are driven by an urgency to get here while the 93-year-old Buffett is still alive.
“This is one of the best events in the world to learn about investing. To learn from the gods of the industry,” said Akshay Bhansali, who spent the better part of two days traveling from India to Omaha.
A NOTABLE ABSENCE
Devotees come from all over the world to vacuum up tidbits of wisdom from Buffett, who famously dubbed the meeting ‘Woodstock for Capitalists.’
But a key ingredient was missing this year: It was the first meeting since Munger died.
The meeting opened with a video tribute highlighting some of his best known quotes, including classic lines like “If people weren’t so often wrong, we wouldn’t be so rich.” The video also featured skits the investors made with Hollywood stars over the years, including a “Desperate Housewives” spoof where one of the women introduced Munger as her boyfriend and another in which actress Jaimie Lee Curtis swooned over him.
As the video ended, the arena erupted in a prolonged standing ovation honoring Munger, whom Buffett called “the architect of Berkshire Hathaway.”
Buffett said Munger remained curious about the world up until the end of his life at 99, hosting dinner parties, meeting with people and holding regular Zoom calls.
“Like his hero Ben Franklin, Charlie wanted to understand everything,” Buffett said.
For decades, Munger and Buffett functioned as a classic comedy duo, with Buffett offering lengthy setups to Munger’s witty one-liners. He once referred to unproven Internet companies as “turds.”
Together, the pair transformed Berkshire from a floundering textile mill into a massive conglomerate made up of a variety of interests, from insurance companies such as Geico to BNSF railroad to several major utilities and an assortment of other companies.
Munger often summed up the key Berkshire’s success as “trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.” He and Buffett also were known for sticking to businesses they understood well.
“Warren always did at least 80 percent of the talking. But Charlie was a great foil,” said Stansberry Research analyst Whitney Tilson, who was looking forward to his 27th consecutive meeting.
NEXT GEN LEADERS

Munger’s absence, however, created space for shareholders to get to know better the two executives who directly oversee Berkshire’s companies: Ajit Jain, who manages the insurance units; and Abel, who handles everything else and has been named Buffett’s successor. The two shared the main stage with Buffett this year.
The first time Buffett kicked a question to Abel, he mistakenly said “Charlie?” Abel shrugged off the mistake and dove into the challenges utilities face from the increased risk of wildfires and some regulators’ reluctance to let them collect a reasonable profit.
Morningstar analyst Greggory Warren said he believes Abel spoke up more Saturday and let shareholders see some of the brilliance Berkshire executives talk about.
“Greg’s a rock star,” said Chris Bloomstran, president of Semper Augustus Investments Group. “The bench is deep. He won’t have the same humor at the meeting. But I think we all come here to get a reminder every year to be rational.”
A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
Buffett has made clear that Abel will be Berkshire’s next CEO, but he said Saturday that he had changed his opinion on how the company’s investment portfolio should be handled. He had previously said it would fall to two investment managers who handle small chunks of the portfolio now. On Saturday, Buffett endorsed Abel for the gig, as well as overseeing the operating businesses and any acquisitions.
“He understands businesses extremely well. and if you understand businesses, you understand common stocks,” Buffett said. Ultimately, it will be up to the board to decide, but the billionaire said he might come back and haunt them if they try to do it differently.
Overall, Buffett said Berkshire’s system of having all the noninsurance companies report to Abel and the insurers report to Jain is working well. He himself hardly gets any calls from managers anymore because they get more guidance from Abel and Jain.
“This place would work extremely well the next day if something happened to me,” Buffett said.
Nevertheless, the best applause line of the day was Buffett’s closing remark: “I not only hope that you come next year but I hope that I come next year.”