Social media advertising fuels crime: Sponsorship of criminal content

Debate continues over how content is selected on social media platforms, which posts are delivered to millions of users, and which advertisements are displayed alongside that content. According to experts, content designed to evoke anger, fear, shock and a sense of scandal tends to generate high levels of engagement, while the algorithms that push such content to increasingly wider audiences are raising serious questions. Another dimension of the debate is the multibillion-dollar advertising economy. From automotive and food to banking and fashion, a wide range of industries are directing their advertising budgets toward digital platforms. However, advertisers do not always have direct control over the content alongside which their ads are displayed. This can result in advertisements from legitimate and established brands appearing alongside content involving crime, violence and fraud. In many cases, advertisers have no direct control over the specific content next to which their ads are displayed. As a result, brands may inadvertently contribute to greater visibility for accounts producing criminal or harmful content. This raises a critical question: Are advertising budgets, even unintentionally, helping to finance a digital ecosystem in which criminal and harmful content thrives? In digital advertising, brands can target audiences based on factors such as age groups, interests, behaviors and location. IT expert Dinçer Karaca explains how the system works through algorithmic auctions. Karaca says that when a brand allocates a budget to reach users within a specific age group or those with particular interests, algorithmic systems determine in a matter of milliseconds which users will be shown the advertisement. Karaca also noted that social media has become a major channel for criminal organizations to reach potential recruits, saying, 'In the past, a criminal organization had to look for children in the neighborhood. Today, it can reach a digital space where thousands of children are present at the same time.' According to Karaca, the issue is no longer simply about content. Distribution systems, algorithms and economic incentives must be examined together. Cybersecurity expert Özen Öner, meanwhile, points out that the digital footprints users leave on platforms help shape the content they are shown. 'We are subject to personalized algorithms shaped by the videos we watch for extended periods, the posts we like and the searches we make. In effect, this imposes a certain system on users while removing transparency,' Öner said. As the amount of time users spend on platforms increases, so does the number of advertisements that can be displayed, placing user attention at the center of the digital economy. Under this model, keeping users on platforms for longer periods translates into more opportunities to serve advertisements. One of the most common strategies used on social media to capture users' attention is to appeal to strong emotions. Content that provokes anger, fear, surprise, anxiety or a sense of scandal can prompt users to comment, share posts or tag other users. Even when a user comments on a post to express a reaction or shares it to voice opposition, the platform still registers that activity as engagement. High levels of engagement, in turn, can contribute to a piece of content reaching a wider audience under certain ranking systems. This raises the question: 'Why do content built around anger, fear, shock and scandal spread so quickly?' Prof. Dr. Ali Murat Kırık also warns that the increasing prominence of extreme content could create a new challenge for advertisers. Kırık said, 'This causes extreme situations and videos to be given greater prominence, with advertisements also being displayed alongside them. Ads end up appearing on videos containing sexual or violent content. The algorithm puts criminal content in front of children.' The sheer scale of the digital advertising industry is another key aspect of the debate. According to figures released for 2025, global digital advertising spending surpassed the $1 trillion mark, with roughly three-quarters of total advertising expenditure being directed toward digital channels. Forecasts for 2026 show that advertising revenues are heavily concentrated among a small number of major companies. Estimates put advertising revenues at around $243 billion for Meta, $239 billion for Google, $23 billion for TikTok and $36 billion for YouTube. The sheer scale of these figures also raises another question: What kind of content ecosystem is advertisers' money ultimately flowing through? As thousands of companies channel their advertising budgets into digital platforms, advertisers do not always have direct control over the nature of the content alongside which their ads appear. As a result, advertisements from legitimate brands can end up being displayed next to content involving crime, violence, fraud or other harmful material. At the heart of the debate is one central question: Are ads placed on social media, unwittingly, helping to fund the criminal economy? The issue here is not to suggest that advertisers are directly supporting criminal content. Rather, the debate centers on whether ad distribution systems are sufficiently transparent and on the extent to which brands can control the content alongside which their advertisements appear.