Conspiracy Brokers: Understanding the Monetization of YouTube Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories are increasingly a subject of research interest as society grapples with their rapid growth in areas such as politics or public health. Previous work has established YouTube as one of the most popular sites for people to host and discuss different theories. In this paper, we pres...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:arXiv.org 2022-05
Hauptverfasser: Ballard, Cameron, Goldstein, Ian, Mehta, Pulak, Smothers, Genesis, Take, Kejsi, Zhong, Victoria, Greenstadt, Rachel, Lauinger, Tobias, McCoy, Damon
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title arXiv.org
container_volume
creator Ballard, Cameron
Goldstein, Ian
Mehta, Pulak
Smothers, Genesis
Take, Kejsi
Zhong, Victoria
Greenstadt, Rachel
Lauinger, Tobias
McCoy, Damon
description Conspiracy theories are increasingly a subject of research interest as society grapples with their rapid growth in areas such as politics or public health. Previous work has established YouTube as one of the most popular sites for people to host and discuss different theories. In this paper, we present an analysis of monetization methods of conspiracy theorist YouTube creators and the types of advertisers potentially targeting this content. We collect 184,218 ad impressions from 6,347 unique advertisers found on conspiracy-focused channels and mainstream YouTube content. We classify the ads into business categories and compare their prevalence between conspiracy and mainstream content. We also identify common offsite monetization methods. In comparison with mainstream content, conspiracy videos had similar levels of ads from well-known brands, but an almost eleven times higher prevalence of likely predatory or deceptive ads. Additionally, we found that conspiracy channels were more than twice as likely as mainstream channels to use offsite monetization methods, and 53% of the demonetized channels we observed were linking to third-party sites for alternative monetization opportunities. Our results indicate that conspiracy theorists on YouTube had many potential avenues to generate revenue, and that predatory ads were more frequently served for conspiracy videos.
doi_str_mv 10.48550/arxiv.2205.15943
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_arxiv</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_arxiv_primary_2205_15943</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2672170062</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a522-a8101cded9b1d83567fdc6f5f50bf6e32254e647e9f8802442d8d06131c660493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNj0tLAzEYRYMgWGp_gCsDrqcmXx6TcaeDL6iIMC5cDekksama1GRGrL_ePly4uptzL_cgdELJlCshyLlO3_5rCkDElIqKswM0AsZooTjAEZrkvCSEgCxBCDZCT3UMeeWT7tb4KsU3m_IFfg5mk70OxodX3C8sfojB9v5H9z4GHB1-iUMzzC3-124WNiZv8zE6dPo928lfjlFzc93Ud8Xs8fa-vpwVWgAUWlFCO2NNNadGMSFLZzrphBNk7qRlAIJbyUtbOaUIcA5GGSIpo52UhFdsjE73szvfdpX8h07rduvd7rw3xNmeWKX4Odjct8s4pLD51G71aUmIBPYLJmRa7g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2672170062</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conspiracy Brokers: Understanding the Monetization of YouTube Conspiracy Theories</title><source>arXiv.org</source><source>Free E- Journals</source><creator>Ballard, Cameron ; Goldstein, Ian ; Mehta, Pulak ; Smothers, Genesis ; Take, Kejsi ; Zhong, Victoria ; Greenstadt, Rachel ; Lauinger, Tobias ; McCoy, Damon</creator><creatorcontrib>Ballard, Cameron ; Goldstein, Ian ; Mehta, Pulak ; Smothers, Genesis ; Take, Kejsi ; Zhong, Victoria ; Greenstadt, Rachel ; Lauinger, Tobias ; McCoy, Damon</creatorcontrib><description>Conspiracy theories are increasingly a subject of research interest as society grapples with their rapid growth in areas such as politics or public health. Previous work has established YouTube as one of the most popular sites for people to host and discuss different theories. In this paper, we present an analysis of monetization methods of conspiracy theorist YouTube creators and the types of advertisers potentially targeting this content. We collect 184,218 ad impressions from 6,347 unique advertisers found on conspiracy-focused channels and mainstream YouTube content. We classify the ads into business categories and compare their prevalence between conspiracy and mainstream content. We also identify common offsite monetization methods. In comparison with mainstream content, conspiracy videos had similar levels of ads from well-known brands, but an almost eleven times higher prevalence of likely predatory or deceptive ads. Additionally, we found that conspiracy channels were more than twice as likely as mainstream channels to use offsite monetization methods, and 53% of the demonetized channels we observed were linking to third-party sites for alternative monetization opportunities. Our results indicate that conspiracy theorists on YouTube had many potential avenues to generate revenue, and that predatory ads were more frequently served for conspiracy videos.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2205.15943</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Channels ; Computer Science - Computers and Society ; Conspiracy ; Public health ; Video</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2022-05</ispartof><rights>2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>228,230,780,784,885,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.15943$$DView paper in arXiv$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3512142$$DView published paper (Access to full text may be restricted)$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ballard, Cameron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldstein, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mehta, Pulak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smothers, Genesis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Take, Kejsi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhong, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenstadt, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lauinger, Tobias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCoy, Damon</creatorcontrib><title>Conspiracy Brokers: Understanding the Monetization of YouTube Conspiracy Theories</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>Conspiracy theories are increasingly a subject of research interest as society grapples with their rapid growth in areas such as politics or public health. Previous work has established YouTube as one of the most popular sites for people to host and discuss different theories. In this paper, we present an analysis of monetization methods of conspiracy theorist YouTube creators and the types of advertisers potentially targeting this content. We collect 184,218 ad impressions from 6,347 unique advertisers found on conspiracy-focused channels and mainstream YouTube content. We classify the ads into business categories and compare their prevalence between conspiracy and mainstream content. We also identify common offsite monetization methods. In comparison with mainstream content, conspiracy videos had similar levels of ads from well-known brands, but an almost eleven times higher prevalence of likely predatory or deceptive ads. Additionally, we found that conspiracy channels were more than twice as likely as mainstream channels to use offsite monetization methods, and 53% of the demonetized channels we observed were linking to third-party sites for alternative monetization opportunities. Our results indicate that conspiracy theorists on YouTube had many potential avenues to generate revenue, and that predatory ads were more frequently served for conspiracy videos.</description><subject>Channels</subject><subject>Computer Science - Computers and Society</subject><subject>Conspiracy</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Video</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GOX</sourceid><recordid>eNpNj0tLAzEYRYMgWGp_gCsDrqcmXx6TcaeDL6iIMC5cDekksama1GRGrL_ePly4uptzL_cgdELJlCshyLlO3_5rCkDElIqKswM0AsZooTjAEZrkvCSEgCxBCDZCT3UMeeWT7tb4KsU3m_IFfg5mk70OxodX3C8sfojB9v5H9z4GHB1-iUMzzC3-124WNiZv8zE6dPo928lfjlFzc93Ud8Xs8fa-vpwVWgAUWlFCO2NNNadGMSFLZzrphBNk7qRlAIJbyUtbOaUIcA5GGSIpo52UhFdsjE73szvfdpX8h07rduvd7rw3xNmeWKX4Odjct8s4pLD51G71aUmIBPYLJmRa7g</recordid><startdate>20220531</startdate><enddate>20220531</enddate><creator>Ballard, Cameron</creator><creator>Goldstein, Ian</creator><creator>Mehta, Pulak</creator><creator>Smothers, Genesis</creator><creator>Take, Kejsi</creator><creator>Zhong, Victoria</creator><creator>Greenstadt, Rachel</creator><creator>Lauinger, Tobias</creator><creator>McCoy, Damon</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>AKY</scope><scope>GOX</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220531</creationdate><title>Conspiracy Brokers: Understanding the Monetization of YouTube Conspiracy Theories</title><author>Ballard, Cameron ; Goldstein, Ian ; Mehta, Pulak ; Smothers, Genesis ; Take, Kejsi ; Zhong, Victoria ; Greenstadt, Rachel ; Lauinger, Tobias ; McCoy, Damon</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a522-a8101cded9b1d83567fdc6f5f50bf6e32254e647e9f8802442d8d06131c660493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Channels</topic><topic>Computer Science - Computers and Society</topic><topic>Conspiracy</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Video</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ballard, Cameron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldstein, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mehta, Pulak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smothers, Genesis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Take, Kejsi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhong, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenstadt, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lauinger, Tobias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCoy, Damon</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>arXiv Computer Science</collection><collection>arXiv.org</collection><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ballard, Cameron</au><au>Goldstein, Ian</au><au>Mehta, Pulak</au><au>Smothers, Genesis</au><au>Take, Kejsi</au><au>Zhong, Victoria</au><au>Greenstadt, Rachel</au><au>Lauinger, Tobias</au><au>McCoy, Damon</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conspiracy Brokers: Understanding the Monetization of YouTube Conspiracy Theories</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2022-05-31</date><risdate>2022</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>Conspiracy theories are increasingly a subject of research interest as society grapples with their rapid growth in areas such as politics or public health. Previous work has established YouTube as one of the most popular sites for people to host and discuss different theories. In this paper, we present an analysis of monetization methods of conspiracy theorist YouTube creators and the types of advertisers potentially targeting this content. We collect 184,218 ad impressions from 6,347 unique advertisers found on conspiracy-focused channels and mainstream YouTube content. We classify the ads into business categories and compare their prevalence between conspiracy and mainstream content. We also identify common offsite monetization methods. In comparison with mainstream content, conspiracy videos had similar levels of ads from well-known brands, but an almost eleven times higher prevalence of likely predatory or deceptive ads. Additionally, we found that conspiracy channels were more than twice as likely as mainstream channels to use offsite monetization methods, and 53% of the demonetized channels we observed were linking to third-party sites for alternative monetization opportunities. Our results indicate that conspiracy theorists on YouTube had many potential avenues to generate revenue, and that predatory ads were more frequently served for conspiracy videos.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><doi>10.48550/arxiv.2205.15943</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2331-8422
ispartof arXiv.org, 2022-05
issn 2331-8422
language eng
recordid cdi_arxiv_primary_2205_15943
source arXiv.org; Free E- Journals
subjects Channels
Computer Science - Computers and Society
Conspiracy
Public health
Video
title Conspiracy Brokers: Understanding the Monetization of YouTube Conspiracy Theories
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T05%3A44%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_arxiv&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conspiracy%20Brokers:%20Understanding%20the%20Monetization%20of%20YouTube%20Conspiracy%20Theories&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Ballard,%20Cameron&rft.date=2022-05-31&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/10.48550/arxiv.2205.15943&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_arxiv%3E2672170062%3C/proquest_arxiv%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2672170062&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true