The Unseen Architecture of AI Silence: A Strategic Guide to Navigating Content Exclusions

As a Content Director, I once watched a multi-million dollar campaign implode on the launchpad.

It wasn’t a catastrophic server failure or a competitor’s masterstroke.

It was a single, AI-powered ad-serving tool that flagged our flagship creative.

The problem wasn’t that our content was obscene, hateful, or illegal—it was none of those things.

The issue was a subtle, contextual mismatch with a brand suitability filter we didn’t even know existed.

Our standard keyword blocklist, the tool we trusted to keep us safe, was utterly useless.

It was like using a street map to navigate an earthquake.

The ground had shifted beneath our feet, and the financial and reputational cost was a brutal lesson in the inadequacy of our mental model for AI governance.

This failure sent me on a mission to understand the real rules of the game.

I found that most leaders share the same frustration: the landscape of AI content restrictions feels arbitrary, contradictory, and in constant flux.

We are told what AI cannot do, but the “why” remains a black box.

Trying to manage this with a simple checklist of banned topics is a recipe for strategic failure.

The epiphany came not from a tech manual, but from an analogy in a completely different field: geology.

The restrictions we face are not a flat, simple list.

They are a complex, layered system—a geological cross-section of intersecting forces.

Each layer represents a different set of pressures, from the deep, solid bedrock of foundational platform policy, to the immense weight of legal and regulatory frameworks, to the heat and pressure of commercial imperatives, all topped by the unstable, shifting soil of the technology’s own inherent flaws.

Understanding this “geology” of AI silence is the key to moving from a state of reactive confusion to one of strategic clarity.

This report deconstructs that architecture, providing a new paradigm for seeing and navigating the complex terrain of AI content governance.

It is a map for leaders who need to make informed, resilient, and responsible decisions in a world increasingly shaped by algorithms.

Section 1: The Bedrock – Foundational Platform Policies

At the deepest level of the AI content landscape lies the bedrock: the foundational policies established by the creators of the technology themselves.

These Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) are not suggestions; they are the non-negotiable terms of service that form the absolute baseline for any interaction with models from major providers like Google, OpenAI, and xAI.¹

This layer is the most stable and explicit, representing the hard rock of what is universally prohibited.

The Explicit Prohibitions (The Hard Rock)

While each platform has its nuances, a clear consensus has emerged around a core set of prohibitions designed to prevent the most severe forms of harm and illegal activity.

These can be broadly categorized:

• Illegal Activities: This is the most fundamental rule. All major platforms explicitly forbid using their services to generate or distribute content that facilitates illegal acts. This includes providing instructions for creating or accessing illegal substances, goods, or services, as well as violating the intellectual property rights of others, such as copyright or trademark law.¹ This policy is a direct reflection of the platforms’ need to operate within global legal frameworks.
• Severe Harm: A significant portion of the AUPs is dedicated to preventing the most egregious forms of harm. There are strict, zero-tolerance bans on content related to Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), the facilitation of violent extremism and terrorism, the creation of non-consensual intimate imagery, and the promotion of self-harm.¹ These rules position the platforms as first-line defenders against the worst abuses of their technology.
• Hate, Harassment, and Violence: The bedrock policies universally prohibit the generation of hate speech, content that harasses, bullies, or intimidates others, and content that incites or glorifies violence.¹ While the definition of these terms can be subject to interpretation at higher layers, the bedrock layer focuses on the most explicit and unambiguous forms of such content.
• Sexually Explicit Content: There is a general prohibition on generating content for the primary purpose of pornography or sexual gratification. However, this is one area where context matters. Some policies note that exceptions may be made for content created for legitimate scientific, educational, or artistic purposes, though the bar for such exceptions is high.¹

The Guardrails of the System

Beyond prohibiting specific types of content, the bedrock policies also establish crucial rules designed to protect the integrity of the safety system itself.

• Circumventing Safety: A critical and universal rule is the prohibition against any attempt to bypass the built-in safety filters. This includes activities commonly known as “jailbreaking” or “prompt injection,” where a user manipulates the model with clever prompts to make it ignore its own safety programming and contravene its policies.¹ This rule is essential; without it, all other safety measures would be rendered ineffective.
• Regulated Professional Advice: A crucial restriction for any business is the explicit and repeated warning not to use or rely on AI services for professional advice in sensitive, high-stakes fields. This includes medical, legal, and financial advice.² Platforms state that any content generated on these topics is for “informational purposes only” and is not a substitute for guidance from a qualified professional. This is a direct response to the technology’s known reliability issues, which are explored further in Section 4.
• Misrepresentation and Deception: To maintain a baseline of trust, AUPs strictly forbid using the services for fraud, scams, or other deceptive actions. This includes impersonating an individual (living or dead) without clear disclosure and, importantly, misrepresenting the provenance of generated content by claiming it was created solely by a human when it was not.¹

These bedrock policies are more than just a moral compass; they function as a fundamental liability shield.

By operating globally, AI companies are subject to a complex patchwork of international laws.

Their AUPs are carefully crafted legal documents that establish a contractual agreement with every user.⁶

By explicitly forbidding activities that are illegal in most major jurisdictions (e.g., CSAM, terrorism, copyright infringement), the platforms create a defensive wall.

If a user violates these clear terms to create illegal or harmful content, the company can argue that the user acted against explicit instructions, thereby attempting to mitigate the platform’s own legal and financial liability.

The AUP is, therefore, as much a legal strategy as it is an ethical one.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Major Platform Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs)

Policy Category

Illegal Activities

Severe Harm (CSAM, Terrorism, Self-Harm)

Hate Speech & Harassment

Sexually Explicit Content

Professional Advice (Medical, Legal, Financial)

Political Campaigning

Safety Circumvention

Section 2: The Sedimentary Layer – Legal and Regulatory Pressures

Layered on top of the bedrock of platform policies is a thick stratum of sedimentary rock, formed by the immense and constant pressure of external legal and regulatory forces.

These are not rules the AI companies created voluntarily; they are mandates and liabilities imposed by governments and legal systems around the world.

This layer compacts and reshapes the bedrock, forcing platforms into more conservative and defensive postures.

The EU AI Act: The Great Compressor

The most significant force shaping this layer is the European Union’s AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive, risk-based regulation for artificial intelligence.⁷

It has established a new global benchmark for AI governance.

The Act’s power comes from its framework, which classifies AI systems based on their potential risk to users:

• Unacceptable Risk: Systems in this category are banned outright. This includes AI used for social scoring (classifying people based on their behavior or status) and cognitive behavioral manipulation of vulnerable groups (e.g., toys that encourage dangerous behavior in children). These prohibitions directly translate into content restrictions, as platforms must ensure their models cannot be used for these forbidden purposes.⁸
• High Risk: This category includes AI systems that can negatively affect safety or fundamental rights, such as those used in law enforcement, migration control, employment, and access to essential services.⁸ These systems are not banned but are subject to stringent requirements for documentation, transparency, human oversight, and pre-market assessment. This pressure forces platforms to restrict content generation in these areas to avoid their models being classified as high-risk, which would trigger a heavy compliance burden.
• Transparency Mandates: The AI Act imposes specific transparency obligations on generative AI models like ChatGPT. It mandates that content generated by AI must be clearly disclosed as such. This includes a requirement to label AI-manipulated media, such as deepfakes, to prevent deception.⁸ This regulatory mandate reinforces the anti-deception rules found in the bedrock AUPs, giving them the force of law in the EU.

The Copyright Dilemma: The Unstable Fault Line

A critical and highly volatile pressure point is the unresolved legal status of copyright in the age of generative AI.

The models are trained on colossal datasets scraped from the internet, which inevitably contain vast amounts of copyrighted text and images.⁹

This creates two major legal quandaries:

1. Training Data: Is it legal to use copyrighted works to train a commercial AI model without permission or compensation? Lawsuits are currently underway to decide this question, creating massive legal uncertainty for AI companies.
2. Generated Output: Who owns the copyright to AI-generated content? In the United States, the Copyright Office has asserted that content cannot be copyrighted unless it involves significant human authorship, leaving purely AI-generated works in a legal gray area.⁷ Wikipedia’s internal policy reflects this ambiguity, warning that AI output may be incompatible with its open licensing requirements.¹¹

This legal fog has a profound chilling effect.

The EU AI Act attempts to bring some clarity by requiring developers to publish summaries of the copyrighted data used for training their models.⁸

In response, platforms build defenses.

They universally prohibit users from using their services to violate copyright law and often forbid using their outputs to train other AI models, effectively trying to contain the legal blast radius of this unresolved issue.³

Data Privacy as a Tectonic Force (GDPR & CCPA)

Data privacy laws, most notably the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), exert another powerful tectonic pressure on AI development.⁷

The training datasets often contain vast amounts of personal data, which may be inaccurate, biased, or scraped without explicit consent.⁹

This creates significant compliance challenges:

• Right to Erasure: Implementing a data subject’s “right to be forgotten” is extraordinarily difficult when their personal information has been absorbed and encoded into the complex neural network of a massive, opaque model.⁹
• Data Accuracy: The principle of data accuracy is threatened when models can “hallucinate” and generate false or misleading information about individuals, potentially damaging their reputation or leading to discriminatory decisions.⁹

These legal pressures directly lead to content restrictions.

Platforms are incentivized to forbid the input of sensitive personal information and to restrict the generation of content about private individuals to minimize their exposure to data privacy litigation.

The combined effect of these legal pressures imposes a significant “compliance tax” on AI development.

The EU AI Act’s documentation requirements, the looming threat of copyright litigation, and the technical difficulty of complying with data privacy laws all represent direct costs in terms of legal counsel, engineering resources, and personnel.⁸

Faced with this landscape of high risk and high cost, the most economically rational strategy for a platform is to err on the side of caution.

This caution manifests directly as broader and more stringent content restrictions, which serve as a primary form of risk management.

It is often cheaper and safer to forbid a category of content entirely than to build a perfect, legally-compliant system to manage it.

Section 3: The Metamorphic Layer – The Intense Pressure of Brand Safety

The third layer of our geological model is metamorphic, forged in the intense heat and pressure of commercial imperatives.

This is where the foundational and legal rules are dramatically reshaped by the powerful, money-driven demands of the advertising ecosystem.

The result is often a much harder, more restrictive, and more sanitized content landscape than the layers beneath would otherwise dictate.

Brand Safety vs. Brand Suitability: The Critical Distinction

To understand this layer, one must grasp the crucial difference between two related concepts: brand safety and brand suitability.¹²

• Brand Safety: This is the universal, non-negotiable floor. It is about protecting a brand’s reputation by preventing its ads from appearing next to content that is objectively harmful or inappropriate for any advertiser. The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) maintains a standard list of unsafe categories, which includes obvious threats like hate speech, terrorism, illegal drugs, graphic violence, and misinformation (often referred to as “fake news”).¹³ These categories largely mirror the prohibitions found in the bedrock platform policies.
• Brand Suitability: This is a subjective, brand-specific filter. It is not about what is universally “unsafe,” but about what is inconsistent with a particular brand’s unique voice, values, and target audience.¹² This is where the commercial pressure becomes most acute. A news report on a military conflict, for instance, is not inherently unsafe, but the casual dining chain Applebee’s found it highly unsuitable for its upbeat “dancing cowboy” commercial, leading them to pull advertising from the news network.¹⁵ Similarly, a vegan food company would consider a website about hunting to be an unsuitable environment for its ads, even though the content is not unsafe for the general public.¹²

The Commercial Filter: Why Advertisers are the Strictest Censors

The economic power of advertisers is the primary force that heats and compresses this layer.

The fear of a negative brand association is a potent driver of corporate behavior.

One survey found that 80% of consumers would reduce or stop buying a product if they saw its ad displayed on an extremist website.¹⁵

This consumer sentiment gives advertisers immense leverage over platforms and publishers.

A recent, high-profile example involved Hyundai pulling all of its advertising from the social media platform X after its ads were found appearing next to extreme antisemitic and pro-Hitler content.¹⁴

This pressure creates a powerful “commercial filter” that is often far more restrictive than the platform AUPs or even legal requirements.

While an AI model might be technically and legally capable of generating nuanced political commentary or edgy satire, the vast majority of mainstream brands will use aggressive exclusion lists to avoid these categories entirely, deeming them too risky for brand association.¹³

This extends to a wide range of topics that are not inherently harmful but are considered commercially volatile, such as user-generated content (UGC), certain news categories, and even some forms of entertainment like anime, which some brands avoid.¹⁵

The result is a powerful, self-reinforcing loop that drives content restrictions far beyond the minimums required by law or platform policy.

AI platforms and the applications built upon them are often reliant on advertising revenue to be profitable.

To attract and retain major advertisers, they must provide the granular safety and suitability controls that brands demand, such as customizable inclusion and exclusion lists for specific topics, keywords, and domains.¹²

This creates a market dynamic where the “safest,” most broadly “suitable,” and least controversial content environments become the most commercially valuable.

Consequently, there is a direct economic incentive for the entire ecosystem to implement policies that restrict any content that could be perceived as risky or “off-brand” for a major advertiser.

This “suitability squeeze” effectively creates a second, stricter set of rules driven entirely by the market.

Table 2: The Brand Safety vs. Brand Suitability Matrix

Content Topic

Military Conflict News

Political Satire

Medical Documentaries

User-Generated Gaming Content

Alcohol-Related Lifestyle Content

This matrix makes the abstract concept of suitability tangible and strategic.

It demonstrates that a one-size-fits-all approach to content filtering is doomed to fail.

A leader must think not in binary “safe/unsafe” terms, but in a matrix of risk tolerance based on their specific brand identity.¹²

This framework reveals why a customized suitability strategy is essential for navigating the commercial pressures of the metamorphic layer.

Section 4: The Unstable Topsoil – Inherent Technical and Ethical Flaws

The final layer, the surface with which we directly interact, is the unstable topsoil.

This layer is composed of the inherent limitations, vulnerabilities, and ethical quandaries of the AI technology itself.

It is the most volatile and unpredictable part of the landscape.

The flaws in this topsoil can cause sudden sinkholes and erosions, necessitating the use of broad, often frustrating restrictions as a form of containment for the entire geological structure.

The Hallucination Problem (Erosion of Fact)

A fundamental characteristic of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their propensity to “hallucinate”—that is, to generate confident, eloquent, and plausible-sounding information that is partially or entirely false.⁴

This is not a bug that can be easily fixed but an intrinsic feature of their design as probabilistic systems that predict the next word in a sequence rather than querying a database of facts.

This inherent unreliability makes them fundamentally dangerous for any high-stakes application where accuracy is paramount.

Wikipedia’s policy against using LLMs for article writing is based on this very problem; even if 90% of the generated content is accurate, the 10% that is fabricated is an unacceptable level of error for an encyclopedia.¹¹

This technical flaw is the direct reason for the bedrock policy found in Section 1 that forbids users from relying on AI for medical, legal, or financial advice.⁶

The risk of an AI confidently inventing a dangerous medical treatment, citing a non-existent legal precedent, or providing flawed financial guidance is simply too great to permit.¹⁷

Algorithmic Bias (The Contaminated Soil)

AI models learn by ingesting and analyzing patterns within massive datasets scraped from the internet and other sources.

These datasets, being a reflection of human society, are saturated with our collective historical and societal biases.⁹

The models inevitably learn, replicate, and often amplify these biases in their outputs.

The real-world consequences of this are well-documented.

Amazon famously had to shut down an AI recruiting tool after it was discovered to be systematically penalizing female candidates because it had been trained on historical hiring data that favored men.¹⁸

Searches for terms like “school girl” have been shown to produce highly sexualized results, while searches for “school boy” do not, reflecting and reinforcing harmful stereotypes.¹⁹

Models trained on biased text may operate on flawed assumptions, such as all doctors being men or all engineers being of a certain demographic.⁴

To mitigate the immense reputational and legal risk of generating overtly biased, discriminatory, or offensive content, platforms are forced to place heavy restrictions on generating content that involves sensitive demographic characteristics, including race, gender, religion, and political affiliation.²

Security Vulnerabilities (The Sinkholes)

The topsoil is riddled with security vulnerabilities that malicious actors can exploit.

These sinkholes represent a constant threat to the integrity of the system.

• Prompt Injection and Jailbreaking: This is a broad category of attacks where an adversarial user crafts a prompt designed to trick the LLM into ignoring its safety programming.⁴ By asking the model to “pretend” or “imagine a scenario,” users can often bypass controls and coax it into generating forbidden content, writing malware, or revealing its own proprietary system instructions.⁴
• Data Leakage and Memorization: Through cleverly phrased interactions, LLMs can be manipulated into repeating verbatim excerpts from their confidential training data.⁴ This poses a massive security risk, as it could lead to the disclosure of private user data, proprietary information, or copyrighted material that was part of the training set.⁹
• Sleeper Agents: A more advanced and insidious threat is the possibility of creating AI “sleeper agents.” These are models that have been intentionally trained with hidden, malicious functionalities that remain dormant until activated by a specific trigger, such as a date or a particular phrase in a prompt. Upon activation, the model could deviate from its safe behavior to produce insecure code or harmful content. These backdoors are exceptionally difficult to detect and remove through standard safety training.⁵

The restrictions we experience on the surface are often “blunt instruments” used to contain this complex web of interconnected technical and ethical risks.

A single, broad rule like “do not generate content about specific private individuals” is a simplified solution to a cascade of underlying problems.

Consider a user asking for information about a private citizen.

This single query triggers multiple risks simultaneously.

The AI could hallucinate false and defamatory information.⁹

Its output could be tainted by

algorithmic bias based on the person’s perceived demographics.

The query itself could violate the individual’s data privacy rights under GDPR.⁹

The model could even be

jailbroken to produce harassing content.

Because it is currently impossible to solve each of these deep, interconnected risks with a perfect, fine-grained technical solution, the only viable option for the platform is to apply a single, overarching policy restriction that forbids the entire category of interaction.

The surface-level rule is a direct symptom of the deep, multi-faceted instability beneath.

Section 5: Strategic Cartography – A Governance Framework for Navigating the Terrain

Understanding the geological architecture of AI content restrictions is the critical first step.

The second is to use that knowledge to build a sophisticated, multi-layered governance strategy.

Moving beyond simplistic, reactive measures like keyword blocking is essential for any organization that wants to leverage AI effectively and responsibly.

A resilient strategy must address the risks present in every layer of the landscape, from the bedrock to the unstable topsoil.

Building a Multi-Layered Governance Strategy

An effective AI governance framework must be architected to mirror the geological layers of risk.

This means creating distinct but interconnected policies and processes that address each set of pressures.

• Layer 1 (The Bedrock – Policy Adherence): The foundation of any internal strategy is absolute compliance with the non-negotiable AUPs of the AI platforms being used.¹

• Action: Formally adopt the AUPs of your chosen AI providers as the baseline for your internal acceptable use policy.
• Process: Conduct mandatory training for all teams that interact with AI tools (marketing, content, product, legal) on these core restrictions, with a special focus on sensitive areas like intellectual property, data privacy, and the prohibition on generating harmful content.¹⁴
• Layer 2 (The Sedimentary – Legal & Compliance): This layer requires proactive engagement with the external legal and regulatory environment.

• Action: Establish a clear point person or team (likely in coordination with the legal department) responsible for monitoring the evolving landscape of AI regulation, such as the EU AI Act and emerging copyright case law.⁷
• Process: Implement regular legal audits of all AI-driven workflows to ensure compliance with data privacy laws like GDPR and CCPA.⁷ Enforce a strict policy of transparently labeling AI-generated content where required by law or best practice, to avoid any form of misrepresentation.⁸
• Layer 3 (The Metamorphic – Brand Suitability): This layer moves beyond universal safety to define what is appropriate for your specific brand.

• Action: Develop a dynamic and detailed Brand Suitability Framework, not just a static safety list. This document should be created in collaboration with marketing, PR, and leadership to define the brand’s specific values, voice, and risk tolerance for various topics.¹²
• Process: Utilize advanced inclusion and exclusion lists that focus on contextual categories and semantic meaning rather than just blunt keywords, which are notoriously context-blind.¹² Rigorously vet all ad tech partners and demand full transparency into their safety and suitability controls and verification tools.¹⁶
• Layer 4 (The Topsoil – Human Oversight): This is the most critical layer for mitigating the day-to-day risks of AI’s inherent flaws.

• Action: The Human-in-the-Loop is Non-Negotiable. Institute a mandatory human review process for all significant external-facing AI-generated content before it is published or used in a high-stakes decision.⁴
• Process: This human oversight is the single most effective defense against factual hallucinations, subtle biases, security exploits, and contextual errors that automated systems will miss. While AI governance tools can provide valuable first-pass checks for compliance and bias, they must be used to support, not replace, final human judgment and accountability.⁷

Finally, this proactive framework must be paired with a reactive crisis response plan.

When a brand safety or suitability issue inevitably occurs, a clear plan should dictate the immediate steps for content takedown, internal investigation, and external communication.²⁰

Table 3: AI Risk and Mitigation Governance Framework

Geological Layer

Bedrock

Sedimentary

Sedimentary

Metamorphic

Unstable Topsoil

Unstable Topsoil

This framework translates the geological paradigm into a practical, operational blueprint.

It allows a leader to assign ownership, define processes, and measure the effectiveness of their governance strategy across all four layers of risk, transforming a complex problem into a manageable set of tasks with clear accountability.

Conclusion: From Reactive Defense to Proactive Architectural Design

The temptation to view AI content restrictions as a frustrating, arbitrary list of “no’s” is understandable, but strategically flawed.

This approach leaves organizations in a constant state of reactive defense, vulnerable to the shifting landscape of technology, law, and commerce.

The path to strategic mastery lies in a paradigm shift: we must stop looking at the list and start understanding the underlying geology.

By seeing the restrictions as a layered system—the solid Bedrock of platform policy, the immense pressure of the Sedimentary legal layer, the intense heat of the Metamorphic commercial layer, and the volatile Unstable Topsoil of the technology’s own flaws—we can move from confusion to clarity.

This geological model provides a durable framework for understanding not just what is restricted, but why.

It reveals the interconnected forces that shape the AI content environment, from a platform’s legal liability to an advertiser’s brand values to a model’s inherent propensity to hallucinate.

The ultimate goal is to evolve from being a reactive victim of this terrain to becoming its proactive architect.

Armed with this deeper understanding, leaders can design content strategies, advertising campaigns, and internal governance workflows that are not just “safe” but are intelligent, resilient, and ethically sound.

They can build frameworks that anticipate risk, assign clear ownership, and implement the non-negotiable safeguard of human oversight.

The specific rules and regulations will undoubtedly continue to shift as laws are passed, technologies improve, and markets evolve.

However, the underlying geological forces—platform liability, legal pressure, commercial imperatives, and technical limitations—will remain.

The framework presented in this report offers more than a snapshot of today’s rules; it provides an enduring strategic compass for navigating the complex and powerful future of artificial intelligence in business.

Works cited

1. Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, accessed August 11, 2025, https://policies.google.com/terms/generative-ai/use-policy
2. Usage policies – OpenAI, accessed August 11, 2025, https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies/
3. xAI Acceptable Use Policy, accessed August 11, 2025, https://x.ai/legal/acceptable-use-policy
4. Office of Information Security Guidance on Large Language Models – Penn ISC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://isc.upenn.edu/security/LLM-guide
5. Large language model – Wikipedia, accessed August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model
6. Generative AI Additional Terms of Service – Google Policies, accessed August 11, 2025, https://policies.google.com/terms/generative-ai
7. AI and the Law: Navigating Legal Risks in Content Creation | Acrolinx, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.acrolinx.com/blog/ai-laws-for-content-creation/
8. EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence | Topics – European Parliament, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence
9. Large language models (LLM) – European Data Protection Supervisor, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/technology-monitoring/techsonar/large-language-models-llm_en
10. The Great Generative AI Debate: To Use or Abuse? | Domestic Data Streamers, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.domesticstreamers.com/art-research/work/the-great-generative-ai-debate/
11. Wikipedia:Large language models, accessed August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Large_language_models
12. A beginner’s guide to brand safety: How to build brand-safe campaigns – Amazon Ads, accessed August 11, 2025, https://advertising.amazon.com/library/guides/brand-safety
13. AI and Brand Safety in Advertising: Risks, Tools, and What Comes Next – StackAdapt, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.stackadapt.com/resources/blog/brand-safety-advertising
14. 6 brand safety best practices to inform your 2025 marketing plan – Hootsuite Blog, accessed August 11, 2025, https://blog.hootsuite.com/brand-safety/
15. The Complete Brand Safety Guide for Advertisers – Peer39, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.peer39.com/blog/brand-safety-guide-for-advertisers
16. Brand Safety for Advertising: How to Protect Your Brand in 2025 – Spider AF, accessed August 11, 2025, https://spideraf.com/articles/brand-safety-for-advertising-2025
17. The long but necessary road to responsible use of large language models in healthcare research – PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11224331/
18. Handle Top 12 AI Ethics Dilemmas with Real Life Examples – Research AIMultiple, accessed August 11, 2025, https://research.aimultiple.com/ai-ethics/
19. Artificial Intelligence: examples of ethical dilemmas – UNESCO, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics/cases
20. Brand safety: What you need to know to protect your brand’s reputation – Sprout Social, accessed August 11, 2025, https://sproutsocial.com/insights/brand-safety/