The Fort Worth Press - In volatile election season, US companies battle 'brand disinformation'

USD -
AED 3.6725
AFN 63.999607
ALL 82.460009
AMD 376.320135
AOA 917.000282
ARS 1386.987097
AUD 1.422728
AWG 1.8
AZN 1.703011
BAM 1.671981
BBD 2.012823
BDT 122.815341
BHD 0.377489
BIF 2970.5
BMD 1
BND 1.273995
BOB 6.905365
BRL 5.1205
BSD 0.999316
BTN 92.260676
BWP 13.408103
BYN 2.916946
BYR 19600
BZD 2.009908
CAD 1.385525
CDF 2300.999685
CHF 0.791095
CLF 0.022797
CLP 897.239769
CNY 6.83625
CNH 6.83802
COP 3649.78
CRC 464.865789
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 94.849562
CZK 20.905054
DJF 177.720524
DKK 6.40062
DOP 60.650348
DZD 132.58041
EGP 53.142385
ERN 15
ETB 155.624986
EUR 0.856502
FJD 2.214903
FKP 0.744078
GBP 0.745775
GEL 2.685009
GGP 0.744078
GHS 11.015003
GIP 0.744078
GMD 73.000206
GNF 8780.000212
GTQ 7.645223
GYD 209.079369
HKD 7.83595
HNL 26.619676
HRK 6.455699
HTG 131.013289
HUF 323.921004
IDR 17093
ILS 3.085255
IMP 0.744078
INR 92.714501
IQD 1310
IRR 1314999.999934
ISK 123.169675
JEP 0.744078
JMD 157.315666
JOD 0.708984
JPY 158.970497
KES 129.250217
KGS 87.450331
KHR 4013.999536
KMF 424.497048
KPW 899.95413
KRW 1480.52036
KWD 0.309013
KYD 0.832781
KZT 477.797202
LAK 21962.489344
LBP 89531.243299
LKR 315.00748
LRD 184.206258
LSL 16.614985
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.344991
MAD 9.305002
MDL 17.208704
MGA 4137.502075
MKD 52.867649
MMK 2099.780124
MNT 3575.250437
MOP 8.062591
MRU 40.102774
MUR 46.579996
MVR 15.460241
MWK 1736.999818
MXN 17.45277
MYR 3.985498
MZN 63.959852
NAD 16.610524
NGN 1374.940177
NIO 36.729858
NOK 9.53804
NPR 147.619434
NZD 1.71446
OMR 0.384518
PAB 0.999308
PEN 3.40375
PGK 4.309855
PHP 59.81397
PKR 278.999723
PLN 3.648363
PYG 6482.581748
QAR 3.646034
RON 4.363011
RSD 100.515984
RUB 77.670367
RWF 1460.5
SAR 3.752607
SBD 8.04851
SCR 13.771039
SDG 601.000128
SEK 9.316585
SGD 1.27517
SLE 24.650643
SOS 571.498147
SRD 37.553974
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.44
SVC 8.744604
SYP 110.553826
SZL 16.614969
THB 32.103952
TJS 9.498763
TMT 3.5
TND 2.892021
TRY 44.59152
TTD 6.778082
TWD 31.801398
TZS 2605.000519
UAH 43.307786
UGX 3697.197396
UYU 40.598418
UZS 12229.999586
VES 474.416902
VND 26330
VUV 119.534712
WST 2.769292
XAF 560.735672
XAG 0.013496
XAU 0.000211
XCD 2.702551
XCG 1.8011
XDR 0.698977
XOF 563.999819
XPF 102.549428
YER 238.574984
ZAR 16.458801
ZMK 9001.197487
ZMW 19.112505
ZWL 321.999592
  • RBGPF

    -13.5000

    69

    -19.57%

  • CMSC

    0.1500

    22.29

    +0.67%

  • RYCEF

    -0.5000

    15.25

    -3.28%

  • BCC

    4.5200

    79.23

    +5.7%

  • VOD

    0.4600

    15.77

    +2.92%

  • BTI

    1.1500

    59.95

    +1.92%

  • GSK

    1.5300

    57.37

    +2.67%

  • RIO

    3.7900

    98.45

    +3.85%

  • RELX

    0.5700

    33.93

    +1.68%

  • NGG

    2.4400

    89.96

    +2.71%

  • BCE

    0.2900

    24.12

    +1.2%

  • JRI

    0.1600

    12.85

    +1.25%

  • BP

    -1.3500

    45.89

    -2.94%

  • AZN

    3.4600

    204.27

    +1.69%

  • CMSD

    0.2100

    22.5

    +0.93%

In volatile election season, US companies battle 'brand disinformation'
In volatile election season, US companies battle 'brand disinformation' / Photo: © GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP

In volatile election season, US companies battle 'brand disinformation'

From Google to Netflix, prominent US companies are battling internet boycott calls over their perceived political leanings in a polarizing election season that has exposed them to what researchers call "brand disinformation."

Text size:

The online campaigns, which falsely claim both Netflix and Google are funding or favoring Democratic nominee Kamala Harris ahead of the November election, illustrate how brands are vulnerable to political falsehoods that can expose them to financial perils.

Those calling for a boycott, researchers say, include fake accounts on the platform X. The site is owned by Elon Musk, who has endorsed Donald Trump and appears to exert an outsized influence on voters through the platform, which has become a hotbed of disinformation.

The recent boycott calls targeting Netflix, which also spread on other platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, were triggered by false claims of a $7 million donation from the streaming service to Harris's campaign, AFP fact-checkers reported.

Reed Hastings, the service's co-founder and executive chairman, made a contribution to Vice President Harris's campaign but the company said it was a "personal donation" and had "no connection to Netflix."

Still, calls to "cancel Netflix" flooded social media sites, with many users falsely claiming the company was indirectly funding the Harris campaign. Some shared screenshots of their canceled subscriptions.

Nearly a quarter of the boycott calls on X were traced to fake profiles, which have consistently expressed support for Trump through the past year, according to the disinformation security company Cyabra.

"Brand disinformation campaigns in today's polarized climate have far-reaching impacts beyond just corporate reputation," Dan Brahmy, Cyabra's chief executive, told AFP.

"The Netflix case demonstrates how rapidly these campaigns spread, potentially reaching hundreds of millions" and shows how "disinformation can manipulate public opinion and consumer behavior," he said.

- 'Delicate balancing act' -

As the hotly contested election nears, Brahmy cautioned, "brands must be vigilant."

Similar boycott calls recently targeted Google after unfounded claims that the company censors election-related content and manipulates search engine results in favor of Harris.

Cyabra identified hundreds of fake profiles on X –- many with a recent history of pro-Trump content -– which called for a boycott of the tech giant while promoting another search engine.

Musk, who has repeatedly criticized Google, played a "significant role in amplifying negative content" against the company, Cyabra said in a report.

In one evidence-free tweet in late July, Musk wrote: "Wow, Google has a search ban on President Donald Trump! Election interference?"

Google did not respond when AFP asked about the allegations, or about the impact of the boycott calls.

Earlier this month, a survey by the portal Sitejabber showed 30 percent of respondents had boycotted a brand over political reasons in the past 12 months, while 41 percent said they prefer that companies keep their "political positions private."

"Brands face a delicate balancing act this election year," Michael Lai, chief executive of Sitejabber, told AFP.

"While staying apolitical may seem safe, it's important for businesses to understand that even neutrality can be interpreted as a position."

- 'Chaos and distrust' -

Another survey by market research firm Certus Insights showed that consumers were divided over whether corporations should engage in partisan politics, with more than half the respondents saying companies should refrain from doing so.

Other surveys suggest consumers consider it the brand's fault if its advertising appears next to polarizing, false or defamatory content.

Such concerns have prompted many advertisers to abandon X, which has scaled back content moderation and restored once-banned accounts known to peddle disinformation or hate following Musk's 2022 acquisition of the platform.

Some also left in light of Musk's own controversial musings on the site.

Earlier this month, X sued an advertising group and several large corporations, accusing them of causing billions of dollars of losses by "illegally" boycotting his site.

"Disinformation creates chaos and distrust. Brands normally benefit from a well-informed society," Claire Atkin, co-founder and chief executive of the anti-disinformation watchdog Check My Ads, told AFP.

"On the internet, advertisers have let tech companies take their ads away from the news and straight into the arms of bad actors. Now, unfortunately, we are all experiencing the consequences."

J.Barnes--TFWP