Fake website examples needed

[Careyp74]

I have to do a small report, and need an example of a website that appears to be created to benefit visitors in a certain area of expertise, but is really created by a certain company to sell their product.

What I have in mind is something like a car insurance company making up a group like the Car Insurance Institute of America, and creating a website around that making visitors think that they are getting unbiased advice, when really the website promotes the company's product.

It could be any kind of company or product. I cannot for the life of me find one now that I need it, even though I have seen countless examples in the past.

[Spindrift]

www.loosechange911.com

[Puppycow]

This one seems fishy:
http://www.howlifeworks.com/Default.aspx

Looks like a news website but it all seems to be stealth advertising.

[chipmunk stew]

This isn't a perfect example, but it might do:
http://www.mercola.com/

[marplots]

My favorite is the Discovery Institute -- www.discoveryinstitute.org which states on it's website: "Discovery Institute is a nonpartisan public policy think tank conducting research on technology, science and culture, economics and foreign affairs."

And is exposed as a front for creationism and Christianity -- a typical expose here: http://thefastertimes.com/evolution/2009/12/07/the-discovery-institute-creationist-propaganda-and-corrupt-christians-part-2/

[chipmunk stew]

http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/

[Dave Rogers]

http://www.junkscience.com/

Steven Milloy is a well-known master of corporate disinformation.

Dave

[DC]

http://better-mileage.com/
http://www.mike-shiva.ch/
http://www.sylviabrowne.com/
http://www.billythetree.com/magnetic-jewelry.aspx
http://www.vatican.va/

:D
http://www.apple.com

i could go on for hours.

[Careyp74]

Well, I think there are a lot of good examples here. Puppycow has a great example. You are right, it isn't unbiased at all, the articles are sponsored by the companies named in them.

Chipmunk's are good too, but a little too obvious. Thanks all.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have to do a small report, and need an example of a website that appears to be created to benefit visitors in a certain area of expertise, but is really created by a certain company to sell their product.

What I have in mind is something like a car insurance company making up a group like the Car Insurance Institute of America, and creating a website around that making visitors think that they are getting unbiased advice, when really the website promotes the company's product.

It could be any kind of company or product. I cannot for the life of me find one now that I need it, even though I have seen countless examples in the past.

Google "free credit reports". The "real" one is www.annualcreditreport.com (http://www.annualcreditreport.com). By law, you are allowed to get a free credit report once a year. This site is run by the government(?), and lets you access all three credit reporting agencies at once.

Other "free credit reports" sites are run by the various companies themselves, and I'm sure there are some scams in there too.

[Dr. Trintignant]

Google "penny auction". You will find roughly a 50/50 mix of actual penny auction sites, and ones like these:
http://www.pennyauctionsreview.org
http://www.pennyauctionscam.org

These pages are obviously made up to look like review sites but are almost certainly created by the auction sites themselves.

For the uninitiated, "penny auctions" are not really auctions at all; at best they are a form of lottery and at worst a complete scam preying on the ignorant and gullible.

- Dr. Trintignant

[Puppycow]

http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/

Some amusing stuff there. I clicked the top article on the list:

http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/gold_coin_011720115

Notice that the prices for those graphs are valued not in dollars or even inflation-adjusted dollars, but in gold. So what you are seeing depends both on the price of wheat and the price of gold. Wheat isn't really as cheap right now as they say it is, it's that gold is really expensive right now.

Those gold bugs really are curious creatures. :D

[mushy]

conservapedia is the obvious one.

[Hawk one]

How about some "non-profit groups" websites that in reality are sponsored by people with an agenda?

Well, here's a list about a few such sites (http://www.cracked.com/article_18879_6-insane-conspiracies-hiding-behind-non-profit-groups.html), courtesy of Cracked.

[Vorticity]

The "National Vaccine Information Center (http://www.nvic.org/)" is an anti-vaxxer front group designed to sound like an impartial government agency.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can find the motherload of astroturf and fake front groups on SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Front_groups)

Examples of Front Groups profiled on SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_groups) (There are links embedded for the following at the link here.)International examples

International Life Sciences Institute

US examples

60 Plus Association
Accuracy in Media
ActivistCash.com
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
Africa Fighting Malaria
African American Republican Leadership Council
AIDS Responsibility Project
Air Hygiene Foundation
Air Quality Standards Coalition
Alaska's Future
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy
Alliance for Better Foods
Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care
Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy
American Beverage Institute
American Council on Science and Health
American Industrial Health Council
American Policy Center
American Tort Reform Association
Americans for Balanced Energy Choices
Americans for Medical Progress
Americans for Tax Reform
America's Power Army
America's Wetland Foundation
Animal Welfare Council
A.N.S.W.E.R.
Association for Competitive Technology
Beverly Hills Restaurant Association
Black America's PAC
Business Tobacco Alliance
California Civil Rights Initiative
California Political Empowerment Committee
Californians for Statewide Smoking Restrictions
Campaign for Working Families
Capital Research Center
Center for Competitive Politics
Center for Consumer Freedom
Center for Economic and Entrepreneurial Literacy
Center for Union Facts
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Christian Coalition
Choose Black America
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
Citizens Against Unfair Health Care Taxes
Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy
Citizens for a Free Kuwait
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Citizens for Better Medicare
Citizens for Sensible Control of Acid Rain
Citizens for Sensible Energy Choices
Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Clean Sites
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Coalition for Asbestos Resolution
Coalition for Equal Rights
Coalition for Health Insurance Choices
Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Reform
Coalition for Responsible Regulation
Coalition for Southern Africa
Coalition for Vehicle Choice
Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth
Community Financial Services Association of America
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Consumer Alert
Consumer Alliance for Energy Security
Consumer Credit Research Foundation
Consumer Data Industry Association
Consumer Distorts
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Rights Coalition
Consumers Alliance for Affordable Natural Gas
Consumers for World Trade
Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity
Consumers' Research
Contributions Watch
Council for Affordable Health Insurance
Council for Energy Independence
Council for Solid Waste Solutions
Council of American Muslims for Understanding
Democracy Watch
Employment Policies Institute
Employment Roundtable
Energy Citizens
Energy Stewardship Alliance
Environmental Issues Council
EPA Watch
FACES of Coal
Farmers for Clean Air and Water
Families Organized to Represent the Coal Economy FORCE
Foundation for Clean Air Progress
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Free Enterprise Coalition
FreedomWorks
George C. Marshall Institute
Global Climate Coalition
Global Climate Information Project
Global Warming Cost website
GreenFacts Foundation
Greening Earth Society
Guest Choice Network
Hands Off the Internet
Heidelberg Appeal
Health Benefits Coalition
Health Care America
Healthcare Leadership Council
Healthy Buildings International, major Philip Morris contractor
Heartland Institute
Hepatitis C Coalition
Independent Women's Forum
Institute for Regulatory Policy
International Freedom Foundation
International Food Information Council
JunkScience.com
Keep America Beautiful
Landmark Legal Foundation
Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Morton Blackwell Leadership Institute
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Mywireless.org
NAIA Trust
National Animal Interest Alliance
National Anxiety Center
National Center for Genome Resources
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Consumer Coalition
National Empowerment Television
National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition
National Endowment for Democracy
National Journalism Center
National Legal and Policy Center
National Legal Center for the Public Interest
National Wetlands Coalition
National Wilderness Institute
Non-Smoker Protection Committee
North American Coalition on Green Building
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Oregonians Against the Blank Check
Parents for Priorities
Political Economy Research Center
Progress & Freedom Foundation
Project Learning Tree
Project Protect
Public Interest Watch
Reason Foundation
Regular Folks United
Republicans for Clean Air
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment
Save Our Species Alliance
Shape the Debate
Smart Growth Madison
Social Issues Research Centre
Speaking of Research
Statistical Assessment Service
Susan B. Anthony List
Teacher Choice
The Energy Initiative
United Seniors Association
Washington Legal Foundation
Water Environment Federation
Wise Use Movement

Canadian Examples

Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions
Wise Use Movement
International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development

European & UK Examples

Agricultural Biotechnology Council
Associates for Research into the Science of Enjoyment (ARISE)
CropGen
European Science and Environment Forum
European Security Advocacy Group
Global Warming Policy Foundation
IWMC World Conservation Trust
Sense About Science
Scientific Alliance

Australian Examples

Australian Environment Foundation
Bennelong Society
HR Nicholls Society
Independent Contractors of Australia
Lavoisier Group
Samuel Griffith Society
Timber Communities Australia
Uranium Information Centre

See also

Astroturf
Industry-funded organizations
Journalists who have been taken in by astroturfing

[Alareth]

cchr.org is a Scientology front with the intent to undermine psychiatric medicine.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Creation Science Fair. Best. Poe site. Ever!
objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html

[pipelineaudio]

How about some "non-profit groups" websites that in reality are sponsored by people with an agenda?

Well, here's a list about a few such sites (http://www.cracked.com/article_18879_6-insane-conspiracies-hiding-behind-non-profit-groups.html), courtesy of Cracked.

There's nothing fake at all about he first one. Its called "center for consumer freedom" and it is exactly about advocating for consumer freedom

[Puppycow]

There's nothing fake at all about he first one. Its called "center for consumer freedom" and it is exactly about advocating for consumer freedom

But are they advocating for consumer freedom because they are being paid to?

[pipelineaudio]

But are they advocating for consumer freedom because they are being paid to?

Don't know, but they aren't a front for selling something, or lying about what theyre doing

I think the OP wanted more like "Atheist Central", Ray Comfort's blog

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's nothing fake at all about he first one. Its called "center for consumer freedom" and it is exactly about advocating for consumer freedom
From SourceWatch: Center for Consumer Freedom (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom)The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network (GCN)") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol, tobacco and other industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.'"
CCF is registered as a tax-exempt, non-profit organization under the IRS code 501(c)(3). Its advisory board is comprised mainly of representatives from the restaurant, meat and alcoholic beverage industries.Here's the problem with claiming this group is about "consumer freedom". The group is about profits for the members, not consumer freedom. They don't want you to be free to choose so much as they want to control the message you base your choice on.

[pipelineaudio]

From SourceWatch: Center for Consumer Freedom (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom)Here's the problem with claiming this group is about "consumer freedom". The group is about profits for the members, not consumer freedom. They don't want you to be free to choose so much as they want to control the message you base your choice on.

From that source watch link it sure sounds to me like they are for consumer freedom and choices. Can you find an example where they advocate taking choice away from consumers?

The fact that they oppose MADD is evidence that they are, in fact for choice and not authoritarianism

[Skeptic Ginger]

From that source watch link it sure sounds to me like they are for consumer freedom and choices. Can you find an example where they advocate taking choice away from consumers?

The fact that they oppose MADD is evidence that they are, in fact for choice and not authoritarianism
Where's your evidence they care more about free choice than countering information that disparages their products?

What free choice infringement are they claiming has occurred? Gee, let me see, they are pissed someone is claiming their products have health consequences consumers need to be informed of.

They don't want restaurants to have to post calories and fat in their products. Because that influences free choice? And other product disclosures definitely affect free choice. :rolleyes:

Naturally people concerned about second hand smoke and drunk drivers have no rights in your version of reality. They have no right to choose to campaign against public smoking or drunk driving definitions. :rolleyes:

CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, D.C., Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and taverns together comprise the "hospitality industry," which has long been cultivated by the tobacco industry as a third party to help slow or stop the progression of smoke free laws. [b]CCF actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of meat & dairy, processed food, fatty foods, soda pop, pharmaceuticals, animal testing, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the "nanny awards" to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives. Anyone who criticizes any of the above is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association (AMA); the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Over 40 % of the group's 2005 expenditure was paid to Rick Berman's public relations company, Berman & Co. for "management services. [1] As part of its operations, CCF runs a series of attack websites, including ConsumerFreedom.com, ActivistCash.com, CSPIscam.com (attacking the Center for Science in the Public Interest), Animal-Scam.com, FishScam.com, ObesityMyths.com, Sweetscam.com, PhysiciansScam.com and PetaKillsAnimals.com. [2]

[pipelineaudio]

Where's your evidence they care more about free choice than countering information that disparages their products?

I don't have any or need any to support my claim, this is a red herring

What free choice infringement are they claiming has occurred? Gee, let me see, they are pissed someone is claiming their products have health consequences consumers need to be informed of.

Besides being irrelevant,doens any of this mean they advocate taking choices away from people?

They don't want restaurants to have to post calories and fat in their products. Because that influences free choice?

Ahh so the fact that they advocate that someone should have a choice to do something or not means they are anti- choice?

Naturally people concerned about second hand smoke and drunk drivers have no rights in your version of reality. They have no right to choose to campaign against public smoking or drunk driving definitions. :rolleyes:

And once again, the advocates of freedom are assailed by a giant strawman of nonsense

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK pipeline, your refusal to debate the facts of the case are duly noted.

[pipelineaudio]

Let me make sure I understand your claim:

The fact that MADD advocates taking choices away from individuals means that anyone who is against taking choices away from individuals is actually against an individual's right to chose?

[JihadJane]

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/

The Peak Oil debunking site that doesn't debunk Peak Oil.

[chipmunk stew]

Ahh so the fact that they advocate that someone should have a choice to do something or not means they are anti- choice?
Well, technically that would be advocacy for producer free choice, not consumer free choice.

Seems to me that trying to stifle attempts to present information to consumers is not advocating consumer free choice.

[pipelineaudio]

Seems to me that trying to stifle attempts to present information to consumers is not advocating consumer free choice.

I agree with you there. Are these guys actually doing that though?

[chipmunk stew]

I agree with you there. Are these guys actually doing that though?

They don't want restaurants to have to post calories and fat in their products.
Admittedly, I'm taking Skeptic Ginger's comment at face value. But if true, a CONSUMER free choice advocacy group would be at the very least neutral on whether we require restaurants to post such information, if not actively advocating such a requirement.

[Dave Rogers]

From that source watch link it sure sounds to me like they are for consumer freedom and choices. Can you find an example where they advocate taking choice away from consumers?

False dilemma. The question is not where this organisation is oriented on the axis of pro- and anti-freedom of choice, but what is its actual intent? In this case, its intent is to promote the sale of particular groups of commodities, by offering counter-information, no matter how specious, to oppose the scientific studies that highlight the dangers associated with these commodities. They are not starting from the axiom that freedom of choice is a good thing and should be maximised; rather, they are using advocacy of freedom of choice as a post facto justification for their misinformation campaign. This places them firmly within the category specified in the OP.

Dave

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let me make sure I understand your claim:

The fact that MADD advocates taking choices away from individuals means that anyone who is against taking choices away from individuals is actually against an individual's right to chose?
I'm not sure what choices you are talking about. But I'd say that a drunk driver killing a person's child took a lot more away from that person than any free choice you are imagining caused you harm.

You seem to think it's only about one individual but lots of things an individual chooses impinges on the rights and freedom of another. You don't live in isolation. Have you somehow missed that fact?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Admittedly, I'm taking Skeptic Ginger's comment at face value. But if true, a CONSUMER free choice advocacy group would be at the very least neutral on whether we require restaurants to post such information, if not actively advocating such a requirement.

Don't take my word for it. SourceWatch does extensive work investigating these front groups. Read what they have to say.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Specifics regarding the anti-menu labeling: (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CCF_selected_campaigns)Anti-menu labeling

In 2004, California state senator Deborah Ortiz introduced a menu-labeling bill that was brought down by a CCF spearheaded campaign. CCF and other major food companies complained that menu labeling was costly and ineffective. Instead, they claimed, the solution to the nation's obesity epidemic was better consumer education and personal responsibility.[16] Joining the opposition was the California Restaurant Association, which predictably argued that the proposed law "sent the wrong message about personal choices and responsibility."[17]
The bill never made it out of the Assembly Health Committee.


Here are some more details from SourceWatch's investigation of the CCF: (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom)A related salvo is CCF's argument that nutrition advocates and other food-industry critics are infantilizing people when they give dietary advice. CCF produced a television commercial showing people trying to enjoy all-American pleasures such as ice cream, hot dogs and beer, only to be foiled by a hand that swoops down and commandeers the offending items. A voice-over inveighs:
"Everywhere you turn, someone's telling us what we can't eat. It's getting harder just to enjoy a beer on a night out. Do you always feel like you're being told what to do? Find out who is driving the food police at ConsumerFreedom.com.[11]

Part of CCF's method is to direct attention away from the substantive issues and to keep the focus on the messenger rather than the message. For example, CCF has created a website known as CSPIscam, whose sole purpose is to discredit and defame the Center for Science in the Public Interest. CCF dismisses CSPI's work as media driven and reliant on junk science to scare people into believing that the group is trying to take away their right to eat whatever they want.[12]
CCF explains its mission as fighting back against "self-anointed "food police," health campaigners, trial lawyers, personal-finance do-gooders, animal rights misanthropes, and meddling bureaucrats."[13] An important aspect of such rhetoric is to set advocates apart from the mainstream. These labels are meant to conjure up caricatured images of 1960s-style activism, complete with flag burning, sex, drugs, and rock and roll.[14] CCf has also developed a website called ActivistCash that claims to "expose" the funding sources of various environmental and public health organizations. The site includes a list of "key players" in nutrition advocacy, including New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle, who is described as "one of the country's most hystieral anti-food-industry fanatics," a food cop with "radical goals."[15]
Implicit in CCF's food cop rhetoric is the idea that people who advocate for eating a healthy diet are motivated by personal agendas. They maintain a long list of people operating under supposed "hidden agendas." CCF is also accuses pro-vegetarian organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) of hiding behind an "animal rights agenda", though these groups are visibly and vocally trying to protect animals and readily acknowledge such. [16]


The way I see it, way too many conservatives are fooled by this kind of marketing campaign. If they would stop buying the campaign slogans and actually look at the facts I think a lot of them would be disgusted by their own side.

[pipelineaudio]

I'm not sure what choices you are talking about. But I'd say that a drunk driver killing a person's child took a lot more away from that person than any free choice you are imagining caused you harm.

You seem to think it's only about one individual but lots of things an individual chooses impinges on the rights and freedom of another. You don't live in isolation. Have you somehow missed that fact?

Apologies your dictatorship sir

I don't think it can be disputed that whether or not we agree with it, MADD advocates taking choices away from people.

Your what ifs are a red herring away from that point

[Dave Rogers]

I don't think it can be disputed that whether or not we agree with it, MADD advocates taking choices away from people.

Your what ifs are a red herring away from that point

And your repeated attempts to emphasise the false dilemma of whether CCF is pro- or anti-consumer choice are a red herring to divert attention away from the subject of the thread, which is the request for examples of websites that ostensibly claim to be offering "benefit [to] visitors in a certain area of expertise", but are in fact "created by a certain company to sell their product". In this case, the claim is that CCF is offering an apparent benefit in that it portrays itself as aiding consumers in exercising freedom of choice, but is in fact a creation of the tobacco and hospitality industries, via a specific public relations company, to help sell their products. Your repeated statement that CCF's stated aims are pro-consumer choice is perfectly consistent with this claim; the whole point of these stated aims is to induce the gullible to believe that this is the case.

Dave

[chipmunk stew]

Apologies your dictatorship sir

I don't think it can be disputed that whether or not we agree with it, MADD advocates taking choices away from people.

Your what ifs are a red herring away from that point
What choices? The choice to drive drunk?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apologies your dictatorship sir

I don't think it can be disputed that whether or not we agree with it, MADD advocates taking choices away from people.

Your what ifs are a red herring away from that pointGive an example so we can see what you mean.