/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

← → days · ↑ ↓ browse · Enter similar · o open

When researchers submitted 20 ads with “blatant” voting misinformation, TikTok approved 90%, Facebook approved a “significant number”, and YouTube approved zero

New York CNN Business —  Facebook and TikTok failed to block advertisements with “blatant” …

CNN Jennifer Korn

Context & Ripple Effects

Facebook’s approval of a significant share of the researchers’ submissions extends a documented pattern: a prior test of COVID-rule-breaking ads also found its screening system approving prohibited campaigns, while an earlier fake-senator ad test exposed identity-verification failures. The new comparison matters because TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube produced sharply different outcomes on the same voting-misinformation submissions.

YouTube’s zero approvals stand against its earlier history of carrying a misleading Biden-corruption ad, underscoring that ad-enforcement results can differ by test, policy area, and platform.

First-order effects

  • TikTok’s review process permitted 18 of the 20 test ads, making it the clearest immediate route for the researchers’ voting-misinformation material to clear paid-ad screening.
  • Facebook’s approval of a significant number of submissions leaves its ad safeguards exposed alongside TikTok’s, while YouTube’s rejection of all 20 separates its result in this test.

Second-order effects

  • The gap in approvals puts Facebook and TikTok under direct comparative pressure: YouTube’s outcome provides a concrete benchmark for screening the same set of submissions.
  • For actors seeking to distribute false voting claims through paid placements, platform choice becomes consequential when otherwise identical ads receive materially different review decisions.

Third-order effects

  • Repeated tests across Facebook’s COVID-policy, identity-verification, and voting-ad workflows point to ad enforcement as an operational weakness that can persist across abuse types rather than a one-off moderation lapse.
  • If comparative testing continues to show uneven approval rates, trust in platform ad-review systems will increasingly depend on demonstrated enforcement outcomes rather than stated policies.

The trend: Political-ad integrity is becoming a test of whether platforms can apply their published rules consistently in paid distribution channels.

Discussion

  • @elisabethbraw Elisabeth Braw on x
    TikTok fails to catch almost all misinformation in political ads - and yet it's increasingly the platform of choice for political campaigns. I shudder to think what this means for our democracies. https://twitter.com/...
  • @jhelmuth @jhelmuth on x
    Here we go again. Be very careful, and critical, of any ads you see on these platforms. https://twitter.com/...
  • @brianfishman Brian Fishman on x
    @katieharbath It is interesting. Not a fan of CNN quoting the report saying Facebook approved a “significant number” without specifying. Is 1 significant? 5?
  • @aaschapiro Avi Asher-Schapiro on x
    TikTok, for it's part, approved 90% of ads with lies: https://www.cnn.com/...
  • @jason_kint Jason Kint on x
    Narrator: We learned last month from a deposition of a Facebook witness that there was an entire category of revenue tracking TikTok ads that violated Facebook policies. Highly relevant to this @CNNBusiness report. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.c…
  • @brianfishman Brian Fishman on x
    Ah... Cite the numbers. [graph showing combined results of tests in the UK and US, UK and France, and US]
  • @jesselehrich Jesse Lehrich on x
    this is SO bad. these aren't random posts, nor are they are they minor / subtle violations — the companies are accepting paid ads lying about how & when to vote. https://twitter.com/...
  • @oliverstuenkel Oliver Stuenkel on x
    YouTube and Facebook letting Brazil election disinformation spread, Global Witness says. The NGO produced a series of purposely misleading ads about the election — YouTube approved all of them to run and Facebook approved half. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
  • @brianfishman Brian Fishman on x
    @katieharbath That's from here, btw. Report would be stronger if they provided a repo of the fake ads. https://cybersecurityfordemocracy.org/ ...
  • @donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
    TikTok approved 90% of ads that contained blatantly false or misleading information, the researchers found. https://www.cnn.com/...
  • @cindyotis_ Cindy Otis on x
    In the experiments, ads submitted included false claims ton include “that voting days would be extended and that social media accounts could double as a means of voter verification. The ads also contained claims designed to discourage voter turnout.” https://twitter.com/...
  • @cyber4democracy @cyber4democracy on x
    TikTok and Facebook failed to detect ads with blatant election disinformation in an experiment by @cyber4democracy and @Global_Witness. These platforms must do better - rules that only exist on paper don't protect our democracy. #Midterms2022 https://cybersecurityfordemocracy.org…
  • @fboversight @fboversight on x
    ‘You would think that they would have learned by now.’ Facebook and other social media still serve up election lies weeks before midterms https://fortune.com/...
  • @jonathanwatts @jonathanwatts on x
    “They don't think it matters because it is Brazil. Facebook and Google's shareholders are in the US, not here.” Social media giants spreading fake news ahead of run-off presidential vote, investigation reveals. Story by ⁦@adowniebrazil⁩ https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
  • @jonrlloyd Jon Lloyd on x
    It's not just @facebook. @Global_Witness tested @YouTube's ability to remove ads containing election disinformation before #Brazil's 2nd round. @YouTube approved 100% of our disinfo ads. And @Meta is STILL approving 50% #Eleiçoes2022 https://www.theguardian.com/ ...