The activist who got advertisers to dump Breitbart is coming for other extremist sites

“I think a lot of butts clenched at the idea that we were formalizing this.”

​Claire Atkin and Nandini Jammi sit on a couch

Claire Atkin (left) and Nandini Jammi (right) co-founded the Check My Ads Institute.

Photo: Check My Ads Institute

Lately, Nandini Jammi has been forwarding all of the hate mail she receives to an executive at a company most people have never heard of: Magnite. The filth filling Jammi’s inbox, she said, has largely come from followers of far-right podcaster Dan Bongino, whose website has published a series of smears about Jammi in recent months. Jammi figures Magnite should know. Their ad exchange, she argues, is one of the businesses that keeps Bongino afloat.

Jammi has been picking fights with far-right media for years. As the co-founder of advocacy group Sleeping Giants, she was behind a successful pressure campaign to get advertisers to sever ties with Breitbart.

Her latest venture, the nonprofit Check My Ads Institute, which she co-founded with former marketer Claire Atkin last year, is taking aim not at advertisers but ad exchanges, which hold most of the power in determining where ads actually show up on the internet. Last week, Jammi and Atkin launched their first major pressure campaign against ad exchanges that have continued to work with the people they say were the primary peddlers of election misinformation leading up to the Capitol riot. Jammi and Atkin’s list includes Bongino as well as Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Tim Pool and Charlie Kirk.

“The ad industry has talked about brand safety ad nauseam. But they do not name names, because no one wants to get their hands dirty,” Jammi said. “Unless we name these things and name the people who are bad actors, we cannot make progress in [this] space.”

Magnite, one of the companies the institute is targeting, did not respond to Protocol’s request for comment.

Jammi and Atkin spoke with Protocol about their Jan. 6 campaign, the harassment they’ve received and the outsized role Google plays in funding election lies — despite its promises not to.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

How did Check My Ads get started?

Claire Atkin: Nandini had defunded Breitbart by 90% successfully by letting advertisers know that their ads were there. Breitbart was kneecapped by that, beheaded — I don't know what metaphor you'd like to use. But 90% of their revenue was pulled out. Steve Bannon himself complained on film that without ads, there's no economic model.

Then when Nandini and I met, I had been working as a marketer concerned about democracy and how our industry was undermining it. And Nandini had been working on this for so long. Both of us were like, who is taking control?

What we did is we wrote [a newsletter called] Branded, and then we started a for-profit agency, and we talked to over 200 [brands] last year about how to check your ads, how to stop funding hate speech and disinformation. And they were keen. They wanted to make this change. And they wanted to check their ads. Over and over again, they had trouble. Ad tech makes it really tough to figure out where you send your ads, how to block the bad sites, how to make sure that your campaigns reflect your brand values. And we decided after a year of working on that, that we, as consultants, could not fix the problem. We had to become a watchdog.

You uncover that this is happening, and then what? What’s the next step?

Nandini Jammi: We know that these advertisers have publisher policies in place to protect brand safety. They already have existing [agreements with ad exchanges] in place that preclude them from working with anyone who incites violence, promotes abuse [or] harassment of individuals or marginalized groups, [or spreads] intentionally misleading narratives or fake news. However, they are not enforcing them. And they're not because advertisers, for the most part, aren't aware that their ads are [being shown] there to begin with. So what we do is we find the ad exchanges that are working with these outlets, therefore violating their own agreement with advertisers, and then we write about it or advocate about it, and the relationship is usually terminated.

What has the reception from ad exchanges been so far?

NJ: Sometimes, they're receptive. Sometimes they respond immediately and will let me know that they have blocked that entity. Other times, they will ignore it or put it on the back burner, and then we have to sort of ramp up the pressure.

This was a role that we had taken on and that I personally have been known to take on all these years anyway. So when we formally launched a watchdog, I think a lot of butts clenched at the idea that we were formalizing this.

CA: Since we launched in October, we have lost Dan Bongino half a dozen ad exchanges. [Editor's note: Protocol was able to confirm five, and a sixth did not comment.]

Tell me about this Jan. 6 campaign.

CA: It is the first formal effort of Check My Ads to take on a topic. We identified the top six people who incited the insurrection [and] who made a ton of money off of it. We don't know how much, because the ad-tech supply chain is opaque. We called them out by name. And we're saying to anyone who wants to join us: Email ad-tech companies, and ask them how this tracks with their policies. That's it. So every day from here until the end of the campaign, we will be asking people to email different ad-tech companies and say: "These are the insurrectionists who you are supporting. You are sending ads to people who incited violence."

NJ: They’re sending money. They have direct relationships, bank account numbers of these people, and they send the money directly to them, or they send it to middlemen that these guys are working with. They still got the money.

Until Sleeping Giants named Breitbart as a brand-unsafe outlet, they were being served by all of these ad exchanges because they were technically considered conservative news. Because so many of these ad exchanges are the same ones that worked with Breitbart, we think that we have the playbook already to de-monetize them.

When you talk about the fact that ad exchanges have these rules on the books, but they don't enforce them, is the lack of enforcement just that they don't want to do it because it's going to cost money? Or is it, we don't want to do it because it's going to make us look bad politically? Or is it that they don't have the resources to enforce it? What are you finding is the biggest barrier?

CA: It's a choose-your-own-adventure of excuses. You just hit the top three.

Of those exchanges, are you finding that Google is one of the main culprits?

CA: Google funds over 80% of the [COVID-19] disinformation, according to the Global Disinformation Index. There are a handful of companies in the world who control the flow of $400 billion. They decide whether or not it goes to local journalism or Dan fucking Bongino. [Editor's note: Google spokesperson Michael Aciman noted that the Global Disinformation Index report was published in 2020, before Google implemented its policy around COVID-19 misinformation, which has resulted in millions of ads being removed from publisher pages. “It in no way reflects the scope of our enforcement today or the breadth of work we’ve done to tackle COVID-19 misinformation on our platforms,” Aciman said.]

How do they compare in terms of their responsiveness to what you're calling out compared to some of these smaller ad exchanges?

NJ: The reason that we target the smaller ad exchanges is because they are not part of the duopoly, and they are a lot more susceptible. What happens then is that we're able to create traction for each of the outlets that we are targeting. And ultimately, we can take that to Google and say: Well, all of these other guys have blocked it. What about you? In the very rare cases that Google does block something, that actually makes it easier to go to the other ad exchanges that are still there and have them cut [the publisher] off as well.

An example of this is Gateway Pundit. NextRoll, Criteo and Magnite [formerly Rubicon] all dropped The Gateway Pundit from their inventory in summer of 2020. And then [last year], Google dropped Gateway Pundit ahead of the publication of a documentary that specifically humiliated them. [Editor's note: Google’s Aciman said in a statement,“In the last year alone, we’ve removed ads from thousands of pages across the sites flagged by Check My Ads and continue to monitor all publishers and creators in our network to ensure they comply with our policies.”]

CA: There is no leadership. They follow each other's lurches. Like, one of them will have a whim, and then we use that as leadership. Already, that's ridiculous. But then also, they respond well to getting publicly outed.

From a policy perspective, is there anything you guys are looking for?

CA: We need a lot more oversight. We need to know what ad exchanges have relationships with what publishers. We need to know who owns ad-tech companies who are receiving ad dollars on behalf of these publishers, and then passing it on. There's a whole swath of shell companies that we don't know anything about within the ad-tech stack. When an ad exchange removes a publisher, we need a place to look. Right now, it's a guessing game.

Why is it so important to know who these [companies] are working with?

CA: There are three things that are traded on the ad-tech supply chain: ads, money and data.

NJ: Personal data. Not who you are, but everything about who you are. It's all the stuff that's triangulated about you. Your real-time location is the most, I think, serious one. Combined with all the other data points that they know about me, including where [I’ve] been going through the day, they can infer my location and where I work and where I hang out and all that stuff, and they can figure out who I am.

CA: If you were a propagandist for a foreign psy-ops group, wouldn't you like to know any of this information? The ad-tech industry isn't just funding extremism and the things that are affecting our national security domestically. It's also an incredible portal into the everyday lives of every single American who uses the internet.

Do you guys have any institutional backers?

CA: Right now we're depending entirely on the generosity and encouragement of the public.

Then also getting revenue from the consultancy side?

CA: We've slowed down that work, but to date have been supported by that. Yes.

Which ad exchanges are you targeting through this campaign?

NJ: We didn't include all of them. We picked out the ones that were the biggest and most major ad exchanges, so this is not an exhaustive list. [On Jan. 5], we as a group contacted OpenX. We have not heard from them at all. OpenX is one of the companies that I have had a dialogue with in the past, and they have been fairly responsive. I’m hoping a little push or a little punch from the public is the impetus to do the right thing. [Editor's note: In a statement, OpenX spokesperson Max Nelson said, “We take marketplace quality really seriously, and in terms of the sites in question, there are some that we don't work with and had previously classified as not complying with our supply policies, and for sites that we do monetize, we are actively monitoring them to make sure they are not in violation of any of our policies.”]

I contacted Magnite personally and privately initially, and I said, “Hey, Dan Bongino is violating your own publisher policy against harassment and abuse. Literally, he is harassing and abusing me.” And they replied, and they said, “We take harassment very seriously.” And they have continued to work with him ever since.

Is there anything else you think people should know about your work or this industry?

CA: Emphasizing the immense power that these ad exchanges have is really the only thing that I would ask you to do. We are in a disinformation crisis and a journalism crisis: 30,000 jobs have been lost in the last decade in journalism. Just local journalism jobs. That's really scary. And that money is going straight into the pockets of disinformation.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the year the Global Disinformation Index was published. This story was updated on Jan. 11, 2022.


Apple's new payments tech won't kill Square

It could be used in place of the Square dongle, but it's far short of a full-fledged payments service.

The Apple system would reportedly only handle contactless payments.

Photo: Nathan Dumlao/Unsplash

Apple is preparing a product to enable merchants to accept contactless payments via iPhones without additional hardware, according to Bloomberg.

While this may seem like a move to compete with Block and its Square merchant unit in point-of-sale payments, that’s unlikely. The Apple service is using technology from its acquisition of Mobeewave in 2020 that enables contactless payments using NFC technology.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

Sponsored Content

A CCO’s viewpoint on top enterprise priorities in 2022

The 2022 non-predictions guide to what your enterprise is working on starting this week

As Honeywell’s global chief commercial officer, I am privileged to have the vantage point of seeing the demands, challenges and dynamics that customers across the many sectors we cater to are experiencing and sharing.

This past year has brought upon all businesses and enterprises an unparalleled change and challenge. This was the case at Honeywell, for example, a company with a legacy in innovation and technology for over a century. When I joined the company just months before the pandemic hit we were already in the midst of an intense transformation under the leadership of CEO Darius Adamczyk. This transformation spanned our portfolio and business units. We were already actively working on products and solutions in advanced phases of rollouts that the world has shown a need and demand for pre-pandemic. Those included solutions in edge intelligence, remote operations, quantum computing, warehouse automation, building technologies, safety and health monitoring and of course ESG and climate tech which was based on our exceptional success over the previous decade.

Keep Reading Show less
Jeff Kimbell
Jeff Kimbell is Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer at Honeywell. In this role, he has broad responsibilities to drive organic growth by enhancing global sales and marketing capabilities. Jeff has nearly three decades of leadership experience. Prior to joining Honeywell in 2019, Jeff served as a Partner in the Transformation Practice at McKinsey & Company, where he worked with companies facing operational and financial challenges and undergoing “good to great” transformations. Before that, he was an Operating Partner at Silver Lake Partners, a global leader in technology and held a similar position at Cerberus Capital LP. Jeff started his career as a Manufacturing Team Manager and Engineering Project Manager at Procter & Gamble before becoming a strategy consultant at Bain & Company and holding executive roles at Dell EMC and Transamerica Corporation. Jeff earned a B.S. in electrical engineering at Kansas State University and an M.B.A. at Dartmouth College.

Why does China's '996' overtime culture persist?

A Tencent worker’s open criticism shows why this work schedule is hard to change in Chinese tech.

Excessive overtime is one of the plights Chinese workers are grappling with across sectors.

Photo: VCG/VCG via Getty Images

Workers were skeptical when Chinese Big Tech called off its notorious and prevalent overtime policy: “996,” a 12-hour, six-day work schedule. They were right to be: A recent incident at gaming and social media giant Tencent proves that a deep-rooted overtime culture is hard to change, new policy or not.

Defiant Tencent worker Zhang Yifei, who openly challenged the company’s overtime culture, reignited wide discussion of the touchy topic this week. What triggered Zhang's criticism, according to his own account, was his team’s positive attitude toward overtime. His team, which falls under WeCom — a business communication and office collaboration tool similar to Slack — announced its in-house Breakthrough Awards. The judges’ comments to one winner highly praised them for logging “over 20 hours of intense work nonstop,” to help meet the deadline for launching a marketing page.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu covers China's tech industry.

Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs WordPress.com, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool Parse.ly and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.


Spoiler alert: We’re already in the beta-metaverse

300 million people use metaverse-like platforms — Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft — every month. That equals the total user base of the internet in 1999.

A lot of us are using platforms that can be considered metaverse prototypes.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

What does it take to build the metaverse? What building blocks do we need, how can companies ensure that the metaverse is going to be inclusive, and how do we know that we have arrived in the 'verse?

This week, we convened a panel of experts for Protocol Entertainment’s first virtual live event, including Epic Games Unreal Engine VP and GM Marc Petit, Oasis Consortium co-founder and President Tiffany Xingyu Wang and Emerge co-founder and CEO Sly Lee.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.


Lyin’ AI: OpenAI launches new language model despite toxic tendencies

Research company OpenAI says this year’s language model is less toxic than GPT-3. But the new default, InstructGPT, still has tendencies to make discriminatory comments and generate false information.

The new default, called InstructGPT, still has tendencies to make discriminatory comments and generate false information.

Illustration: Pixabay; Protocol

OpenAI knows its text generators have had their fair share of problems. Now the research company has shifted to a new deep-learning model it says works better to produce “fewer toxic outputs” than GPT-3, its flawed but widely-used system.

Starting Thursday, a new model called InstructGPT will be the default technology served up through OpenAI’s API, which delivers foundational AI into all sorts of chatbots, automatic writing tools and other text-based applications. Consider the new system, which has been in beta testing for the past year, to be a work in progress toward an automatic text generator that OpenAI hopes is closer to what humans actually want.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories