DIGITAL LIFE

Half of the major digital platforms fail in transparency regarding advertising and user data, according to an international study
A survey conducted by researchers from Brazil and the United Kingdom reveals that social networks operate with low levels of transparency, hindering independent investigations and the fight against disinformation. In the Brazilian scenario, limitations are even more evident and worrying.
The influence of digital platforms on the flow of information has never been so evident — and, at the same time, so difficult to examine closely. A new international study sheds light on this paradox by showing that, although these companies collect enormous volumes of data on users, they offer little visibility into their own practices.
The research, entitled Data Not Found, was conducted by NetLab, from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, in partnership with the Minderoo Centre for Technology & Democracy, in the United Kingdom. The objective was to analyze, in an unprecedented way, how large digital platforms make data on content and advertising available.
Fifteen platforms operating in Brazil, the European Union, and the United Kingdom were evaluated, including popular names such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Kwai, and Telegram. Comparing these regions allows us to understand how different regulatory contexts influence access to information.
The European Union, for example, has one of the most advanced legislations in the world, notably the Digital Services Act (DSA), which establishes stricter transparency rules. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, adopts a more flexible approach, based on specific assessments by regulatory authorities. Brazil, in turn, still faces a developing regulatory landscape.
Limited transparency and incomplete data...To measure the level of openness of the platforms, the researchers used the Social Media Transparency Index, which assesses factors such as availability, quality, and accessibility of data.
The results point to a widespread problem: in virtually all the platforms analyzed, the data is incomplete, difficult to access, and poorly standardized. This includes flaws in ad libraries, lack of clarity on campaign financing and targeting, as well as obstacles to tracking essential information.
In Brazil, the situation is even more critical. Some tools available in other countries simply do not exist here, or function in a more limited way. This significantly reduces the ability of independent researchers to analyze the impact of these platforms.
An opaque system by nature...According to the study, the lack of transparency is not isolated, but structural. Even when mechanisms for accessing data exist, they are often inconsistent and unreliable.
This scenario creates a clear imbalance: while platforms accumulate detailed information about their users, the internal workings of these companies remain virtually inaccessible to the public. In practice, the platforms themselves define what can or cannot be investigated about them.
Many of these transparency initiatives end up functioning more as image strategies than as real tools for accessing information. The result is an appearance of openness that does not translate into useful data for analysis.
Impacts for research, regulation, and society...The opacity of platforms has direct consequences for different sectors. Researchers face difficulties in validating studies and investigating social impacts, while regulatory authorities lack information to conduct audits or open investigations.
This prevents, for example, the effective mapping of disinformation campaigns, abusive advertising practices, or the exposure of vulnerable audiences—such as children and adolescents—to harmful content.
Without reliable and accessible data, it becomes almost impossible to understand the true extent of these problems or to develop effective public policies to address them.
The global debate on the power of digital platforms has reinforced the importance of transparency as a central element in ensuring the integrity of information. Organizations such as the UN already recognize that access to quality data is essential for accurate diagnoses of the digital environment.
However, the study highlights that it is not enough to simply release data: it is essential that it be complete, standardized, and truly useful for analysis. Currently, many available tools offer limited resources, hindering deeper investigations.
Furthermore, even in regions with advanced legislation, such as the European Union, access to data still largely depends on the decision of the platforms themselves—which represents a significant limitation.
An urgent and global challenge...Faced with this scenario, researchers advocate for the creation of more robust and effective regulations, especially in countries like Brazil. At the same time, they suggest that the platforms themselves adopt higher standards of transparency on a voluntary basis.
The lack of uniformity across regions also exacerbates inequalities: while some researchers gain access to data, others—especially in the Global South—remain excluded, even when dealing with more vulnerable contexts.
Ultimately, transparency cannot be treated as a corporate choice. In a world increasingly dependent on digital platforms for information and public debate, it needs to be seen as an essential condition for protecting the collective interest.
Research indicates that around half or more of major digital platforms (including Meta, Google, TikTok, X, and others) fall short in providing adequate transparency regarding advertising and user data. A 2024 analysis found that opacity is the norm rather than the exception, particularly regarding how user data is used for targeting and the lack of accessible advertising repositories for independent researchers.
Key findings on ad transparency failures(below):
Lack of repositories: Several major platforms, including Telegram, TikTok, X (Twitter), and Spotify, have failed to provide functional, comprehensive, and public advertising repositories in many regions, notably in the Global South.
Pinterest: Pinterest has faced significant scrutiny and legal complaints regarding its transparency in user data tracking and advertising practices, particularly within the European Union. Critics, including digital rights advocacy group noyb (None Of Your Business), have accused the platform of violating GDPR by engaging in "secret tracking" and failing to provide adequate information on how data is shared with third parties.
Inadequate data access: Even where libraries exist, such as Meta’s Ad Library, the provided data is often limited, providing insufficient information on ad targeting, total spend, or reach.
"Transparency-washing": Researchers argue that platforms often employ "transparency-washing," creating limited, self-regulated tools to avoid stricter, mandatory, and more comprehensive oversight.
API restrictions: Social media platforms are increasingly restricting access to their Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), which are essential for independent data collection, effectively blocking researchers from auditing their systems.
Ephemeral ads: Ephemeral (short-lived) ads are often missed by transparency tools, creating significant blind spots for monitoring disinformation or illegal content.
Source: The Conversation




