IDU reference 6

Mathematical Analysis
. Data Representation and Interpretation:
○ The report provides a specific estimate: US$ 36.7 million in annual

advertising revenue is directed to 98 climate change

2
disinformation sites.
○ This figure is derived from data collected over a specified period

(March 15, 2021, to October 25, 2021).

○ The analysis is limited to open-web content and does not include

social media or video platforms.

. Quantitative Comparison:
1
○ The annualized run rate allows us to project the total annual

revenue based on the data from the specified period.

○ Breaking down the US$ 36.7 million across 98 sites, the average

revenue per site from advertising is approximately US$ 374,490

per year.
○ This significant figure highlights the scale of monetization

occurring through disinformation.

2
English Analysis
. Critical Thinking and Interpretation:
○ The text emphasizes that disinformation has become a profitable

business due to internet business models prioritizing engagement

over content quality.
○ The phrase "reward engagement above all else" points to the core

issue: attention is monetized without regard to potential harm.

○ The report underscores the necessity for data to support actions

against this ecosystem, particularly the need for independent,

1
transparent risk ratings.
. Language and Communication:
○ Terms like "neutrality," "independence," and "transparency" are

used to establish the credibility and impartiality of the GDI.

○ The report uses strong language to convey the urgency and

impact of the issue, such as "disrupt the business model of

disinformation."
Orientation in Space and Time
. Temporal and Spatial Context:
○ The data spans a specific timeframe in 2021, providing a snapshot
2
of the disinformation landscape during that period.
○ Spatially, it focuses on open-web content, excluding social media

and video platforms, thus giving a partial but significant view of

the issue.
. Implications and Broader Context:
○ The monetization of disinformation, particularly about climate

change, has broader implications for public perception and policy-

making on critical global issues.
1
 ○ This context underscores the need for coordinated efforts among
commercial companies, researchers, and policymakers to address
the problem.
Combined Approach
. Interdisciplinary Understanding:
○ Combining mathematical analysis with English allows us to

quantify the scale of the issue (US$ 36.7 million in revenue) and
understand its implications (the business model incentivizing
harmful content).
○ The report’s data provides a foundation for informed discussions

and actions, supported by both quantitative evidence and

qualitative insights.
. Critical Analysis and Synthesis:
○ This approach helps illustrate the scale of financial incentives

driving disinformation, while also highlighting the importance of

transparency and independent assessment in tackling the issue.
○ By understanding both the numbers and the narrative,

stakeholders can better strategize interventions to mitigate the

impact of disinformation.
Conclusion
The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) report reveals the significant financial
incentives behind disinformation, particularly related to climate change. The
mathematical data (US$ 36.7 million annually) quantifies the scale of the
problem, while the English analysis explains the mechanisms and impacts of
monetizing disinformation. This combined approach underscores the need for
independent, transparent risk ratings to inform policy and commercial
decisions, emphasizing the broader temporal and spatial context of combating
misinformation in the digital age.

Mathematical Analysis
. Data Representation and Interpretation:
○ The pie chart visualizes how advertising funds are distributed

across various companies that support climate change

disinformation sites.
○ Google is the largest contributor, responsible for 38.8% of the

total US$36.7 million, equating to approximately US$14.23 million.

○ Taboola (12.9%), Criteo (11.3%), AppNexus (8.27%), Amazon

(7.9%), Rubicon (6.37%), OpenX (5.71%), Pubmatic (4.99%), and

Revcontent (3.74%) account for the remaining shares.
. Quantitative Comparison:
○ The chart allows us to compare the proportions of funding from

different advertising companies.

○ Google’s contribution is significantly higher than others, being

more than three times larger than Taboola, the next largest
 ○

contributor.
○ The total funding provided by Google, Taboola, and Criteo is
US$23.1 million, which is 63% of the total US$36.7 million.
English Analysis
. Critical Thinking and Interpretation:
○ The text emphasizes the role of major advertising companies in

funding climate change disinformation.

○ Google’s notable share (38.8%) highlights the significant impact a

single company can have on the dissemination of false

information.
○ The mention of Google reducing its share from 70% in previous

reports to 38.8% suggests an effort to mitigate its involvement in

funding disinformation.
. Language and Communication:
○ Words like "monetization," "disinformation," and "funding"

underscore the financial dynamics behind the spread of false

information.
○ The report uses precise figures and percentages to communicate

the scale and impact of advertising spending on disinformation

sites.
Orientation in Space and Time
. Temporal and Spatial Context:
○ The data covers the period from March 15, 2021, to October 25,

2021, providing a contemporary snapshot of the disinformation

funding landscape.
○ Spatially, it focuses on the open web, excluding social media and

video platforms, indicating a partial view of the broader ecosystem

of disinformation.
. Implications and Broader Context:
○ The reduction in Google’s funding share over time suggests a shift

in company policy or strategy, possibly in response to public

pressure or regulatory scrutiny.
○ The persistent funding by major companies like Taboola and Criteo

indicates ongoing challenges in addressing the financial incentives

behind disinformation.
Combined Approach
. Interdisciplinary Understanding:
○ The mathematical data (percentages and dollar amounts) provides

a clear picture of the distribution of funds, while the English

analysis contextualizes these figures within broader efforts to
combat disinformation.
○ Together, they illustrate the economic incentives driving the

spread of false information and the ongoing efforts to address

these issues.
 . Critical Analysis and Synthesis:
○ This approach highlights the importance of both quantifying the

problem (through data) and understanding the implications of

these numbers (through narrative analysis).
○ The significant financial support from major advertising companies

underscores the need for comprehensive strategies involving

industry, policy, and civil society to reduce the spread of
disinformation.
Conclusion
This image and accompanying analysis from the Global Disinformation Index
(GDI) report illustrate the substantial financial contributions from major
advertising companies to climate change disinformation sites. The
mathematical data shows the distribution and scale of these contributions, with
Google being the largest contributor. The English analysis provides context,
highlighting efforts to reduce such funding and the challenges that remain. This
combined approach underscores the need for ongoing, coordinated efforts to
address the monetization of disinformation and its broader societal impacts.

English Analysis
The table employs language strategically to convey the message about brands
funding climate change disinformation. Here are some key points:
● Language Use: The table uses specific phrases like "climate change
consensus is not real," "climate alarmists," and "victimized for
disputing climate change." These terms are emotionally charged and
designed to influence the reader's perception.
○ Example: The term "climate alarmists" used in the context of

American Greatness implies an exaggeration by those who warn

about climate change, casting doubt on their credibility.
● Rhetorical Techniques: The table positions the brands in a negative
light by associating them with disinformation.
○ Example: Associating reputable institutions like John Hopkins

University and global companies like Amazon with disinformation

efforts suggests a significant and worrying trend.
● Critical Analysis: Students can evaluate the biases in the
presentation. For example, the use of "funding" implies intentional
support for disinformation, which might not always be the case if ads
are placed automatically by algorithms.
Math Analysis
Mathematical analysis can help understand the scale and impact of the
information presented in the table:
● Data Representation: The table is a matrix with categories such as
Brand Advertised, Brand Details, Advert Served By, News Site, and
Detail of Disinformation. This structure allows for a clear comparison
across different brands and disinformation types.
 ○ Example: Google is the advertising service for the majority of the
brands listed, indicating a possible area of focus for understanding
the spread of disinformation.
● Statistical Analysis: Calculate the proportion of ads served by each
advertising platform.
○ Example: Out of the 8 entries, Google served ads for 5 brands.

Therefore, the percentage of ads served by Google is (5/8) * 100 =

62.5%.
● Impact Analysis: Estimate the potential reach of disinformation based
on the popularity of the news sites.
○ Example: Breitbart and The Federalist are known for significant

online followings, suggesting that the disinformation could reach a

wide audience.
Combined Approach
Combining English and Math provides a holistic view of the issue:
● Narrative and Quantitative Analysis: Students can write a report that
includes both a qualitative assessment of the language used and a
quantitative analysis of the data.
○ Example: Discuss how the language of disinformation impacts

public opinion while also presenting statistical data on the

distribution of ads by different platforms.
● Data Visualization: Create visual aids to support the analysis.
○ Example: A bar graph showing the number of disinformation

instances associated with each brand or a pie chart illustrating the

distribution of ad services.
Global Context: Orientation in Space and Time
Understanding the spatial and temporal dimensions of the data:
● Spatial Analysis: Look at the geographic origins of the brands and the
locations of the news sites to understand the global spread of
disinformation.
○ Example: The brands listed are from the UK, USA, and Germany,

showing the international nature of the issue.

● Temporal Analysis: Analyze the data over the specific period (March
15, 2021, to October 25, 2021) to understand trends in disinformation.
○ Example: Discuss how the spread of disinformation might correlate

with significant climate events or policy discussions during this

period.
● Historical and Contemporary Impact: Discuss the broader
implications of disinformation on historical and contemporary events.
○ Example: Explore how disinformation campaigns may have

influenced public opinion and policy decisions on climate change,

both historically and in recent times.
Conclusion
By examining the table through the lenses of English, Math, and a combined
approach, while considering the global context, students can gain a
comprehensive understanding of how brands are implicated in the spread of
climate change disinformation. This interdisciplinary analysis encourages
critical thinking and helps students appreciate the complexity of information
dissemination in the modern world.