
Sham news sites make big bucks from fake views - pseudolus
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50432080
======
crazypython
This is common. I help develop a small browser MMO game-- 50,000 monthly
active users. There were at least three sites that iframe'd our site, put ads
on it, and made money off of it. Code was added in to detect this and redirect
users.

~~~
Hedja
You can avoid loading your site in an iframe using headers.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options)

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Co...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Content-Security-Policy)

~~~
mettamage
You can go around that as a web developer by redirecting traffic through a
server and kicking that header off.

~~~
askmike
After which the original source can ban your server's IP.

Let the whack-a-mole games begin.

~~~
winrid
Proxy the script and alter it... Whack. :P

------
jl2718
Nice of them to provide so many examples at the bottom of their own page.

~~~
axegon_
Exactly what I was thinking:

> [https://i.imgur.com/0EPIi6D.png](https://i.imgur.com/0EPIi6D.png)

~~~
ceejayoz
It's baffling to me how many major news outlets have willingly compromised
their integrity in this way, to the point of permitting Outbrain/Taboola to
use look-alike fonts and formatting.

In an era where legitimate reporting gets called "fake news", why make that
easier to do?

~~~
lllr_finger
Because Outbrain and Taboola can easily be 1/10th or more of a legit site's
revenue, on the order of millions of dollars. I'm not saying that's a good
thing, it's a very difficult argument with the amount of money you could
potentially miss out on.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's not a legitimate site any more once it starts making money that way. You
might as well sell cigarettes in a health food store. Outbrain and Taboola are
cancer and the world would be better off if their offices were flattened by a
meteor impact.

~~~
brycesbeard
I assert it doesn’t affect the legitimacy of the site at all. Also, I don’t
think selling cigarettes undermines a pharmacy.

I may place less importance on “brand coherency” and more on “value to myself”
than others.

------
mtsx
Meanwhile "similarweb" stats are also fake...... "We estimate each site is
making at least $100,000 [£77,450] a month," said Vlad Shevtsov, director of
investigations at Social Puncher.

this is no. 1 bull shit........basically main stream news-portal reporter have
no knowledge about tech..

~~~
uberman
I would love to know as well how they are getting a $100 cpm when google says
the average is less than $3

------
treebornfrog
I used to know a guy back in 2014 who's entire business model was based on ad
arbitrage.

1) buy clicks on native ad networks 2) send user to a gallery style page
(press next to see another celeb without makeup) 3) load all pages with a ton
of ads 4) profit.

This CPM arbitrage was super common back then, still is prevalent but is
getting tougher.

Taboola/Outbrain merging and saying they will take on goog/fb is a joke.

[https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/03/taboola-
outbrain/](https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/03/taboola-outbrain/)

------
paulpauper
But how does one go about getting traffic to such a sham site? In terms of
SEO, hihg traffic keywords are very competitive, and advertising such as
Google or Facebook is expensive. If one were to copy the template and puts ads
on it, it's not like they would start making thousands of dollars a day.

~~~
paulgb
I worked in adtech detecting and blocking this stuff circa 2011. Back then it
was common for sites like these to be used to launder impressions into higher-
paying CPI categories. So you might have an arcade site (low CPI) include a
hidden iframe for a fake beauty site.

It was honestly pretty easy to detect, but it seemed to me that the industry
was just looking the other way because everyone in the industry was just
trying to drive volume for their eventual IPO.

I think now the iframe stuff is harder to get away with, but botnets were a
big source of traffic as well.

~~~
j-c-hewitt
I used to think that people would really care about this but because only the
advertisers are being defrauded everyone does tend to look the other way. I
wouldn't shut up about ad fraud and how big a deal it was going to be years
ago and I was just wrong because people in this sector just have a really high
tolerance for crime and people are just looking the other way.

------
mlb_hn
The money's one thing, but my concern is that the same ad-fraud tech used to
fake all those views can fake views to actual news sites (and influence
coverage via analytics). If it can beat Google and Amazon's fraud detection,
how well would the news sites be able to detect that sort of attack?

I haven't had any luck getting BBC's numbers on their click-fraud detection
rates ='( 3 FOI requests rejected due to security exceptions.

------
skittleson
It's been like this for years. Been losing trust in those major news sites. Ad
blocker helps. Avoiding them is better.

------
ScriptKitty
Interesting that the site they are talking about is from my area, I've been on
it before and never felt it was suspicious. I've usually assumed a lot of news
publications here that tend to report on cartel related activities often like
to stay anonymous due to the fact people will try to kill you for it.

------
mikedilger
The Internet has democratized information. Big media has lost their monopoly
on news. So they are lashing out and accusing small media and independents of
anything they can accuse them of, including fake news, fake views, plagarism,
anything at all. It's not that their particular accusations are necessarily
wrong. But the story they have been pushing front and center for the last few
years now is the idea that all news sources and websites other than big media
are somehow suspect, dangerous, untrustworthy, fake. This is self-serving and
disingenuous.

~~~
chiefalchemist
More importantly, it's questionable journalism. It amazes me how much fluff
the mainstream media pumps out. So much so that the real and actual news gets
buried (read: most people end up under-informed).

The MSM events might be real, but that doesn't make it news. News has
importance. News has relevance. But that text book definition a lot of MSM
news is in fake not real news.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Journalists are currently underpaid. Small newspapers are shutting down left
and right.

That's contributing to journalism going to hell.

~~~
chiefalchemist
True. But the biggest contribution is the big time mainstream media's race to
the bottom. They're not focused on quality. They're focused on quantity (i.e.,
ad revenue).

~~~
DoreenMichele
That's another facet of the same issue.

It's a little like arguing about whether the rampant dry tinder in the drought
is the problem or the vast numbers of tourists flicking their still burning
cigarette butts into it is the problem while we stare at the ongoing
conflagration.

~~~
chiefalchemist
I see it different. Given the importance of The Fourth Estate, the nature of
TFE's business is, in and of itself, important. Yet, they bury that lead
behind an endless stream of fluff.

------
ajkjk
The state of ads on the internet right now feels like the state of popups in
~2000. I hope the whole industry gets destroyed by some benevolent
legislation.

~~~
chucknthem
I hope it’s a better business model! Last thing I want is more regulation
adding administrative costs to business.

------
burtonator
Google, Facebook, etc can kill this off by requiring a 90 initial day payout
for new news sites and also requiring a deposit that can be forfeit if the
site is violating their ToS.

Facebook wants to actively encourage this as their strategy is to push fake
news so the GOP gets into the Whitehouse again as Sanders/Warren have
threatened to break up FB.

------
schalab
Isnt this a self correcting problem? I guess the first time advertisements
were introduced, people were incredibly susceptible to misleading advertising.
Overtime you learnt that almost everything they claim could be wrong and you
tune them out. They become much less potent.

We are just living in a perfect storm, with the internet just taking off
mainstream, and people are susceptible to believing online trends translate to
reality. If you are in niche communities, hiring an artificial botting firm
might provide insane rewards. But over time, as more people see the disconnect
they will understand not to trust anything online.

I feel people getting burnt and changing their behavior organically is far
better than a benevolent organization stepping in and making arbitrary
decisions to protect us. Because these organizations do not tend to be
benevolent and even if they are, their decisions often have disastrous second
order consequences. While the public never learns or evolves.

Its like the body's immunization system. Just give it time. Sometimes it may
take a decade. People should really stop trying to make drastic solutions for
things that will likely resolve themselves.

~~~
nitrogen
From a systemic perspective, this makes sense, but what about the individuals
who get burned in the process? Not everyone is willing to write off collateral
damage without some kind of repair for the damage.

~~~
schalab
The problem is, most methods you propose to correct for individuals getting
burned, may create more systematic problems, which may result in more
individuals getting burned in the long run. These are incredibly complex
systems which are not suitable for intelligent design.

The best solution maybe is for individuals and the shared culture to get
wiser, and this often happens only when there is enough collateral damage.

------
Akababa
Are there any negative externalities from this? If ad fraud is a self-
contained cat-and-mouse game between Google and bots, I'm fine with watching
from the sidelines.

~~~
jeremyjh
The costs of advertising are ultimately paid by consumers who buy advertised
products. If money is wasted by paying bots to watch ads, you can expect
consumers to pay a bit more since it drives up the cost.

~~~
ilkan
Prices aren't -that- efficient. The expected cost of advertising is already
baked into the profit margins for large companies, it only hurts smaller ones.

------
SlowRobotAhead
I’m sorry. I’m “fakenews”ed out.

I just watched Newsweek have to fire a “reporter“ for making up a story about
Trump tweeting and golfing on Thanksgiving - when in reality he was on AF1
going to Afghanistan to do “Thanksgiving with the troops”. Guess what, that
was fakenews and no one fooled me into visiting a site run by Macedonian
teens.

In this case Newsweek didn’t fire her because she made up a story, they fired
her because she was caught.

Jussy Smolleíte (the French actor), Covington kids, the red scare 2.0, The
Mueller, basically everything on CNN for the past three years, everyday a new
scandal... I need a break before I even care the slightest bit about what the
original definition of fakenews was supposed to be.

Edit: ok, try and silence me. Fine by me, but just wait and see, I’m not the
only one that isn’t looking what “legit” media is putting out and what
“fakenews” is supposed to be and not seeing a ton of difference. Look at the
bottom of the BBC article without an ad blocker if you need more evidence.
It’s like you guys want to pretend that “real news” isn’t followed by and
voted on by bot networks and push their own ad schemes.

~~~
tzs
I don't understand the Thanksgiving thing. Trump's official schedule called
for him to spend Thanksgiving at his club in Florida. The Newsweek article
said that he was going to spend Thanksgiving at the club, and that he would
probably spend the day golfing and tweeting.

That he was actually going to Afghanistan was kept secret, and was not
revealed until after the Newsweek story was written. The Newsweek story was
then updated to include the Afghanistan visit.

How does a reporter get fired over that?

