 |
|
|
|||||
Research on misinformation and disinformation has become the latest casualty of the Trump administrations restructuring of federal research priorities. Following President Donald Trumps executive order on ending federal censorship, the National Science Foundation canceled hundreds of grants that supported research on misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation refers to misleading narratives shared by people unaware that content is false. Disinformation is deliberately generated and shared misleading content, when the sharer knows the narrative is suspect. The overwhelming majority of Americans95%believe misinformations misleading narratives are a problem. Americans also believe that consumers, the government and social media companies need to do something about it. Defunding research on misinformation and disinformation is, thus, the opposite of what Americans want. Without research, the ability to combat misleading narratives will be impaired. The attack on misleading narrative research Trumps executive order claims that the Biden administration used research on misleading narratives to limit social media companies free speech. The Supreme Court had already rejected this claim in a 2024 case. Still, Trump and GOP politicians continue to demand disinformation researchers defend themselves, including in the March 2025 censorship industrial complex hearings, which explored alleged government censorship under the Biden administration. The U.S. State Department, additionally, is soliciting all communications between government offices and disinformation researchers for evidence of censorship. Trumps executive order to restore free speech, the hearings and the State Department decision all imply that those conducting misleading narrative research are enemies of the First Amendments guarantee of free speech. These actions have already led to significant problemsdeath threats and harassment includedfor disinformation researchers, particularly women. So lets tackle what research on misinformation and disinformation is and isnt. Misleading content Misinformation and disinformation researchers examine the sources of misleading content. They also study the spread of that content. And they investigate ways to reduce its harmful impacts. For instance, as a social psychologist who studies disinformation and misinformation, I examine the nature of misleading content. I study and then share information about the manipulation tactics used by people who spread disinformation to influence others. My aim is to better inform the public about how to protect themselves from deception. Sharing this information is free speech, not barring free speech. Yet, some think this research leads to censorship when platforms choose to use the knowledge to label or remove suspect content or ban its primary spreaders. Thats what U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan argued in launching investigations in 2023 into disinformation research. It is important to note, however, that the constitutional definition of censorship establishes that only the governmentnot citizens or businessescan be censors. So private companies have the right to make their own decisions about the content they put on their platforms. Trumps own platform, Truth Social, bans certain material such as sexual content and explicit language, but also anything moderators deem as trying to trick, defraud, or mislead us and other users. Yet, 75% of the conspiracy theories shared on the platform come from Trumps account. Further, both Trump and Elon Musk, self-proclaimed free-speech advocates, have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is critical of them. Musk claimed the suppression of accounts on X was a result of the sites algorithm reducing the reach of a user if theyre frequently blocked or muted by other, credible users. Truth Social representatives claim accounts were banned due to bot mitigation procedures, and authentic accounts may be reinstated if their classification as inauthentic was invalid. Is it censorship? Republicans say social media companies have been biased against their content, censoring it or banning conservatives unfairly. The censorship industrial complex hearings held by the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee were based on the premise that not only was misleading narrative research part of the alleged censorship industrial complex, but that it was focused on conservative voices. But there isnt evidence to support this assertion. Research from 2020 shows that conservative voices are amplified on social media networks. When research does show that conservative authors have posts labeled or removed, or that their accounts are suspended at higher rates than liberal content, it also reveals that it is because conservative posts are significantly more likely to share misinformation than liberal posts. This was found in a recent study of X users. Researchers tracked whose posts got tagged as false or misleading more in community notesXs alternative and Metas proposed alternative to fact checkingand it was conservative posts, because they were more likely to include false content than liberal posts. Furthermore, an April 2025 study shows conservatives are more susceptible to misleading content and more likely to be targeted by it than liberals. Misleading America Those accusing misleading narrative researchers of censorship misrepresent the nature and intent of the research and researchers. And they are using disinformation tactics to do so. Heres how. The misleading information about censorship and bias has been repeated so much through the media and from political leaders, as evident in Trumps executive order, that many Republicans believe its true. This repetition produces what psychologists call the illusory truth effect, where as few as three repetitions convince the human mind something is true. Researchers have also identified a tactic known as accusation in a mirror. Thats when someone falsely accuses ones perceived opponents of conducting, plotting or desiring to commit the same transgressions that one plans to commit or is already committing. So censorship accusations from an administration that is removing books from libraries, erasing history from monuments and websites, and deleting data archives constitute accusations in a mirror. Other tactics include accusation by anecdote. When strong evidence is in short supply, people who spread disinformation point repeatedly to individual stories (sometimes completely fabricated) that are exceptions to, and not representative of, the larger reality. Facts on fact-checking Similar anecdotal attacks are used to try to dismiss fact-checkers, whose conclusions can identify and discredit disinformation, leading to its tagging or removal from social media. This is done by highlighting an incident where fact-checkers got it wrong. These attacks on fact-checking come despite the fact that many of those most controversial decisions were made by platforms, not fact-checkers. Indeed, fact-checking does work to reduce the transmission of misleading content. In studies of the perceived effectiveness of professional fact-checkers versus algorithms and everyday users, fact-checkers are rated the most effective. When Republicans do report distrust of fact-checkers, its because they perceive the fact-checkers are biased. Yet research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked, just that prominent and prolific speakers get checked more. When shown fact-checking results of specific posts, even conservatives often agree the right decision was made. Seeking solutions Account bans or threats of account suspensions may be more effective than fact-checks at stopping the flow of misinformation, but they are also more controversial. They are considered more akin to censorship than fact-check labels. Misinformation research would benefit from identifying solutions that conservatives and liberals agree on. Examples include giving people the option, like on social media platform Bluesky, to turn misinformation moderation on or off. But Trumps executive order seeks to ban that research. Thus, instead of providing protections, the order will likely weaken Americans defenses. H. Colleen Sinclair is an associate research professor of social psychology at Louisiana State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
PepsiCo is the latest big-name marketer to rev up alongside Formula 1, joining a growing roster of brands eager to tap into the surging popularity of the global motorsport. The snack and beverage giant recently signed a multiyear partnership with F1 that includes TV-visible trackside ads, on-site activations at 21 races, and co-branded promotions for three of its marquee brands: Gatorade, Doritos, and Sting Energy. With this move, PepsiCo joins the ranks of luxury powerhouse LVMH, Qatar Airways, and tech heavyweights like Oracle, HP, and Amazon Web Serviceseach of which has struck sponsorship deals with either individual racing teams or the league itself. Young, rich, global While PepsiCo has long been a fixture in sports marketingteaming up with leagues like the NFL, NBA, WNBA, and the 2026 and 2027 FIFA World Cupscompany execs say Formula 1 brings something different to the table. The sports fan base skews younger, is more affluent, and appeals equally to men and women. And with 24 Grand Prix races spanning 21 countries, F1 offers marketers a unique chance to connect with both global and hyperlocal audiences on the same circuit. It’s a pretty unique global property right now with great momentum, Adam Warner, PepsiCos vice president of global sports and entertainment partnerships, tells Fast Company. We see a great fit with many of the iconic brands in our portfolio. It is also growing massively. Celebrating its 75th anniversary in 2025, F1 commands a TV audience of 1.6 billion, 97 million social media followers, and in-person attendance that grew 9% to 6.5 million in 2024 versus the prior year, according to the leagues parent company Liberty Media. F1 generates the highest sponsorship deal spending across all major leagues, at $6 million on average, according to data analytics firm SponsorUnited. Liberty Media, the mass media owner of Sirius XM and Live Nation Entertainment, gets much of the credit for boosting the sports popularity after it acquired F1 in a $4.4 billion deal in 2016. Since then, F1 has launched a fantasy league to increase online engagement, launched a female-only racing series in 2023, and most importantly to the U.S. market, added races in Miami and Las Vegas. The U.S. markets F1 fan base grew by nearly 11% last year to total 52 million, according to analytics company Nielsen Sports. Marketers expect interest will increase after General Motors and Cadillac add an American team to the league for the 2026 season. Theres not many sports in the world that travel around in the way that they do, to the amount of locations that they do, and actually bring fans in from two different directions, says Clare Lawson, global president of Ogilvy One, the ad giants customer engagement and experience division. Lawson explains that this core base is now made up of petro heads that love the data and technology behind the cars and the fans that are more into the glitz and glamor of the party scene thats developed around each race. F1 is also benefiting from a more expansive position in pop culture. Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen, and other drivers have become huge stars and tabloids are closely following their personal lives, as well as the women they date and marry. Netflixs popular TV documentary series based on the league, Drive to Survive, is widely credited for expanding the audience, particularly in the U.S. Later this month, Apple Original Films will release a sports drama film based on the league called F1. Big brands, big money What weve seen with Formula 1 is its become more part of almost the cultural fabric of people following the drivers themselves, says Alison Payne, chief marketing officer of Heinekens U.S. business. [Image: Heineken] The Dutch brewer has been an advertiser with the league since 2016 and this month debuted a new ad spot featuring the F1 film stars Brad Pitt and Damson Idris to promote the nonalcoholic beer brand Heineken 0.0. Alcohol and driving never mixes, says Payne. It is a perfect platform to raise the awareness that you can still have fun and be part of the social scene, just without alcohol. Brands say F1 is an exciting vehicle to build creative local campaigns that can match the unique vibe for each Grand Prix race. For Patrón, that resulted in sponsoring a live concert at members-only Soho House in Austin, tapping into the DJ and nightclub culture in Las Vegas, and toasting the glamorous party scene in Miami with the spicy margarita, as that race tends to run close to Cinco de Mayo. [Photo: Patrón] The tequila producer found a natural affinity in the motorsports league in 2021 when it kicked off a partnership with the only F1 driver from Mexico, Sergio Pérez. But that initial deal only involved his own name and likeness and Patrón had to ink a subsequent partnership with Pérezs former team, Oracle Red Bull Racing, to show him in his F1 uniform. Those are the things you have to figure out as a brand, says D-J Hageman, VP of marketing at Patrón. What are the right IP [intellectual property] rights that I need and want to have to use in my marketing materials and assets. Adidas accelerated their partnership with F1 by signing a multiyear partnership with the Mercedes-AMG PETRONAS F1 team in January, a collaboration that allows the German sportswear brand to create apparel and footwear to outfit both the pro team and fans. To coincide with the Miami race, Adidas debuted a Floridian inspired collection in burgundy and coral that featured a graphic of a mangrove tree leaf. [Photo: Adidas] We have to spice it up with local insights to make it more relevant for local consumers, says Michael Batz, general manager of Adidas Motorsport. Capital Ones digital concierge service Velocity Black has been a F1 partner since 2023, working closely with F1s Aston Martin Aramco team. CEO Sylvain Langrand says particularly strong demand for races in popular destinations, including Monaco and Singapore, can make it hard for travelers to book high-end hotels and tables at popular restaurants and bars. [Photo: Velocity Black] Langrand says his service offers their clientele a full end-to-end F1 experience that includes transportation, hotel reservations, hospitality experiences, and even an opportunity to meet the Aston Martin team in person. Velocity Black offers F1 packages across the globe, but says that the U.S. events sell out first. Even when you think about the entire F1 racing calendar throughout the year, these three events in the U.S. are very, very special, says Langrand.
Category:
E-Commerce
Scroll through a TikTok feed, and you’ll eventually come across someoneusually incredibly photogenic, with perfect teeth and flawless skinextolling the virtues of some product or another, or a restaurant, or a destination. And then another. And another. Influencer marketing is an unintended consequence of the social media revolution. Platforms like YouTube and TikTok allowed ordinary people to build followingsand, in a way, become celebrities. Brands and businesses soon latched onto these influencers, leveraging the trust they had with their audiences to advertise products. Mia Maples and Linus Sebastian are the Serena Williams and George Foreman of the digital age: celebrities who can raise a companys profile with a single post, lending credibility to products with a young, energetic audience. Crucially, they allow marketers to reach consumers increasingly cynical toward traditional advertising, and even taking steps to shield themselves from it, whether by paying for ad-free subscriptions on YouTube and Spotify or using ad-blocking browser extensions. That is, at least, the argument on paper. In practice, things are murkier. Reasonable questions remain about whether influencer marketing is as effective as once thought, or whether it still works at all. What Even Is an Advertisement? To understand the challenges facing influencer marketing, we first need to define what constitutes an advert. An advert is, in essence, any materialwritten, spoken, or audiovisualthat attempts to sell a product or service to a third party. For brands, influencer marketing offers a way to connect with an elusive demographic. Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha don’t read newspapersand neither do many millennialsor consume much broadcast television or radio. Theyre tech-savvy, know how to block ads, and often pay to remove them from their services. These consumers, skeptical of legacy media, likely feel differently about their favorite creators. When those creators tout a product, it can convey a level of credibility. These influencer-brand tie-ins may not feel like ads, but they are, and thats the intent behind them. That is, at least, the theory. In practice, things work a little differently. Waning Influence Let me be clear: Influencer marketing still holds power, and value for brands. But its influence is often overstated, and were now seeing diminishing returns. First, theres influencer fatigue. Brand deals are so common that almost everyone knows when their favorite creator posts a new video, a good portion will promote a VPN provider, budget headphones, or some other product. These in-content ads are so ubiquitous (and often grating) that browser plug-ins now skip past them. SponsorBlock, for example, is the largest, with over two million Chrome users. Just as people might leave the room during TV commercials, theyre now doing the same for online content. Similarly, on apps like TikTok and Instagram, the #ad hashtag (the telltale sign of an influencer deal) often prompts users to immediately scroll. This almost reflexive, negative response is called influencer fatigue, fueled by the overwhelming wave of promotional content on social mediaand a growing annoyance with influencers themselves. Thats the thing: Influencers were once seen as a way to deliver advertising without it feeling like advertising. But over timethanks to saturationthats no longer true. A Matter of Trust Theres also a growing trust gap between consumers and brands that lean heavily on influencers. Take PayPal-owned Honey, once promoted by some of YouTubes biggest creators. It was pitched as a free browser plug-in that scoured the web for discount codes. In reality, Honeylater described as a scamsiphoned affiliate revenue from those it was otherwise owed toincluding, ironically, the very creators who promoted it. It also manipulated which codes were shown, hiding the most valuable ones. Honey isnt alone. Other companies, like BetterHelp, also leaned on influencers, only to later land in controversy. These scandals chip away at the credibility of influencer marketing. They make consumers wary of creators promoting new productsespecially when those creators, often small one-person teams, lack the resources to vet what theyre endorsing. The result: a decline in trust for both influencers and brands. Evidence suggests this decline is real. A 2023 study from EnTribe found that just 12% of people are likely to buy products promoted by influencersand 42% of those who did regretted it. Then theres the issue of attribution. If a million people watch a video, how many truly saw the promotionand didnt skip it, either manually or via a plug-in? How do you measure impact, beyond simple conversions tied to affiliate codeswhich fail to capture brand awareness or perception? Is Influencer Marketing Still the Future? Thats the $33 billion question, isnt it? I still believe the influencer economy holds value. Without it, wed still face the same challenge: reaching an audience increasingly elusive to traditional advertising. But as an industry, we need to recalibrate expectations and find more creative ways to reach younger consumers. Though younger audiences live much of their lives online, they dont exist entirely behind screens. They leave the houseand outdoor advertising should be part of the strategy. Podcasts. Streaming video. In-game advertising. And yes, even legacy mediawhen supported by the dataall have a role to play. There’s room for influencer marketing, too. But it alone isn’t enough. And likely never was.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||