Disinformation thrives because today’s online business models reward attention over accuracy. Harmful content spreads quickly, while the systems that govern our digital world lag behind.
GDI does not simply identify disinformation and flag it. GDI maps the revenues that sustain the business of harmful content creation online. We build the evidence base that allows governments, policymakers and industry to act, and publish independent research that informs the rules and standards governing the online information environment.
Three principles anchor our analytical work: - Independence: We accept no funding from media companies or technology platforms. Our analytical outputs are shaped by evidence, not by the interests of those we assess. - Transparency: We invite peer organisations and academics to critique and improve our methodology, and we make our data freely available because accountability requires openness. - Neutrality: We are apolitical, global, and evidence-based.
With global digital advertising spend exceeding $800bn annually, the financial stakes are significant. GDI's research has shown how programmatic advertising infrastructure routinely funds high-risk disinformation sites, not through a deliberate choice by advertisers, but rather the structural opacity of ad tech supply chains. Our estimates suggest that approximately $200 million per year has been redirected away from high-risk news sites as a direct result of GDI's and partner organisations' work with the advertising industry. When we add in the revenues earned by content creators of harmful content from selling merchandise, from donations and platform revenue shares - we begin to see how profitable harmful content online has become/
GDI frames disinformation through an adversarial narrative framework; our definition works within internationally recognised human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Disinformation is a presentation or version of events that creates an adversarial relationship between the reader of the story and the subject - usually an at-risk group or an institution. It is information that is harmful, false, or misleading. Adversarial narratives often include facts presented out of context or omit certain facts from an analysis to construct a misleading narrative and manipulate public opinion. Adversarial narratives often contain one or more of the following elements: - Intentionally misleading - Financially or ideologically motivated Adversarial against: - People and groups at-risk (referencing the UN framework of helping build resilient societies) - Current scientific consensus (i.e., climate change, COVID-19 pandemic) - Democracy, civic institutions, and national or international governing bodies Adversarial narratives aim to foster long-term social, political, sectarian, or economic conflict. Most importantly, adversarial narratives create and/or foster a risk of harm both in online and offline spaces.
GDI's Online Harms Monetisation Dashboard (OHMD) will provide the first comprehensive estimates of the revenue generated by adversarial content across the open web and social media platforms. Using a combination of direct data collection and transparent, evidence-based estimation methodologies, the dashboard will produce estimates of the financial gains for both the content creator and the platform that amplifies it.
The OHMD is designed to: - Support smarter policy by targeting the economic incentives that sustain adversarial content. - Enable platform accountability through evidence-based, independent assessment. - Support sanctions enforcement by evidencing revenue flows to sanctioned actors. - Guide resource deployment for counter-measure initiatives.
With this tool, GDI will help policymakers, regulators, civil society, and academia in supporting those working to make the consumer-facing internet safer and more accountable.
The business model behind harmful content online remains largely hidden. The programmes that fund adversarial narratives operate under opaque, shifting rules and debates over enforcement under the Digital Services Act and national regulatory frameworks continue with little understanding of the financial gains involved.
Without credible, independent evidence on how harmful content is financed, regulators cannot design effective interventions.
Interested in learning more about our work? Check out our latest report.