private consent advertising platform

Permission.io

A private advertising platform using ASK tokens to reward people for permissioned ad engagement and data-sharing activity. Permission.io improves the consent story compared with ordinary adtech, but it still monetizes personal data through advertiser demand, token incentives, and a private platform users do not govern.

Why this matters: Permission.io helps calibrate the difference between consent-based data markets and genuinely non-surveillance models.

Letter grade D Extractive Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 12, 2026

Final Score 11* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE11 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material19

Bonus+1

Cap35Ownership <= 2 and Governance <= 2

After Cap20

Penalties-9

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from Surveillance Capture.

Strengths

Extraction3/10
Loss-Bearing Fidelity3/7
Market Conduct3/5

Penalties

Surveillance Capture-4
Accountability Opacity-2
Subscription Capture-1
Identity Capture-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims12
Direct axis claims12
Coverage12/15

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	1 / 10	Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. This leaves Permission.io low on Ownership: the offering may have practical utility, but the governing power and economic upside are not held by affected users or workers. The value is above zero only where the product still provides some real alternative to baseline advertising or data-market practice. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. [1] context Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. [2] context Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. [3] context Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. [4] context Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. [5] context Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. [6]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	2 / 10	Permission.io's linked public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. Permission.io's linked public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. This leaves Permission.io low on Governance: the offering may have practical utility, but the governing power and economic upside are not held by affected users or workers. The value is above zero only where the product still provides some real alternative to baseline advertising or data-market practice. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence context Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. [1] Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. [2] context Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. [3] context Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. [4] context Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. [5] context Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. [6]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	3 / 10	Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. This places Permission.io in the middle of Extraction: the model has real reform value, but the evidence still leaves private control, voluntary enforcement, data-market dependence, or limited stakeholder power. It belongs above ordinary adtech where consent or anti-surveillance design is meaningful, and below user-governed commons. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence context Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. [1] context Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. [2] Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. [3] context Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. [4] context Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. [5] context Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. [6]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	1 / 7	Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. This leaves Permission.io low on Labor Sovereignty: the offering may have practical utility, but the governing power and economic upside are not held by affected users or workers. The value is above zero only where the product still provides some real alternative to baseline advertising or data-market practice. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence context Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. [1] context Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. [2] context Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. [3] context Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. [4] context Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. [5] context Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. [6]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	2 / 7	Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. This leaves Permission.io low on Solidarity with the Unemployed: the offering may have practical utility, but the governing power and economic upside are not held by affected users or workers. The value is above zero only where the product still provides some real alternative to baseline advertising or data-market practice. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence context Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. [1] context Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. [2] context Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. [3] context Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. [4] context Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. [5] context Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. [6]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	3 / 7	Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. This places Permission.io in the middle of Loss-Bearing Fidelity: the model has real reform value, but the evidence still leaves private control, voluntary enforcement, data-market dependence, or limited stakeholder power. It belongs above ordinary adtech where consent or anti-surveillance design is meaningful, and below user-governed commons. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence context Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. [1] context Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. [2] context Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. [3] context Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. [4] context Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. [5] context Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. [6]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	3 / 5	Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. This places Permission.io in the middle of Market Conduct: the model has real reform value, but the evidence still leaves private control, voluntary enforcement, data-market dependence, or limited stakeholder power. It belongs above ordinary adtech where consent or anti-surveillance design is meaningful, and below user-governed commons. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence context Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. [1] context Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. [2] context Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. [3] Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. [4] context Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. [5] context Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. [6]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	2 / 5	Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. This leaves Permission.io low on Product Integrity: the offering may have practical utility, but the governing power and economic upside are not held by affected users or workers. The value is above zero only where the product still provides some real alternative to baseline advertising or data-market practice. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence context Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. [1] context Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. [2] context Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. [3] context Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. [4] Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. [5] context Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. [6]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	2 / 5	Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. This leaves Permission.io low on Scale Integrity: the offering may have practical utility, but the governing power and economic upside are not held by affected users or workers. The value is above zero only where the product still provides some real alternative to baseline advertising or data-market practice. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence context Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers. [1] context Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction. [2] context Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising. [3] context Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work. [4] context Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction. [5] Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure. [6]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Subscription Capture ? Manipulative recurring-payment, automatic-renewal, cancellation-friction, bundling, trial-conversion, or refund designs that profit from inertia or confusion. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Permission.io's model uses recurring subscription, reward, token, or account mechanics that can profit from inertia or continued participation. Permission.io's model uses recurring subscription, reward, token, or account mechanics that can profit from inertia or continued participation. That warrants a Subscription Capture penalty because the cited model still exposes users, creators, or the public to data capture, manipulative incentives, opacity, identity pressure, or a fragile private dependency. The penalty is limited where the model is opt-in, privacy-improving relative to adtech peers, or reform-oriented rather than purely extractive. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence Permission.io's model uses recurring subscription, reward, token, or account mechanics that can profit from inertia or continued participation. [8]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Permission.io's public model requires users to understand complex advertising, data, token, privacy, or pledge mechanics before they can judge the exchange clearly. Permission.io's public model requires users to understand complex advertising, data, token, privacy, or pledge mechanics before they can judge the exchange clearly. That warrants a Accountability Opacity penalty because the cited model still exposes users, creators, or the public to data capture, manipulative incentives, opacity, identity pressure, or a fragile private dependency. The penalty is limited where the model is opt-in, privacy-improving relative to adtech peers, or reform-oriented rather than purely extractive. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence Permission.io's public model requires users to understand complex advertising, data, token, privacy, or pledge mechanics before they can judge the exchange clearly. [9]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	Permission.io's public framing invites users or participants to identify with a privacy, rewards, ethical-marketing, or data-ownership posture that also benefits institutional adoption. Permission.io's public framing invites users or participants to identify with a privacy, rewards, ethical-marketing, or data-ownership posture that also benefits institutional adoption. That warrants a Identity Capture penalty because the cited model still exposes users, creators, or the public to data capture, manipulative incentives, opacity, identity pressure, or a fragile private dependency. The penalty is limited where the model is opt-in, privacy-improving relative to adtech peers, or reform-oriented rather than purely extractive. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence Permission.io's public framing invites users or participants to identify with a privacy, rewards, ethical-marketing, or data-ownership posture that also benefits institutional adoption. [10]
Surveillance Capture ? Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.	-4	Permission.io's model processes attention, advertising, browsing, personal data, or transaction signals, making surveillance-capture risk directly relevant even where consent or on-device processing reduces harm. Permission.io's model processes attention, advertising, browsing, personal data, or transaction signals, making surveillance-capture risk directly relevant even where consent or on-device processing reduces harm. That warrants a Surveillance Capture penalty because the cited model still exposes users, creators, or the public to data capture, manipulative incentives, opacity, identity pressure, or a fragile private dependency. The penalty is limited where the model is opt-in, privacy-improving relative to adtech peers, or reform-oriented rather than purely extractive. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence Permission.io's model processes attention, advertising, browsing, personal data, or transaction signals, making surveillance-capture risk directly relevant even where consent or on-device processing reduces harm. [11]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	Permission.io frames contested choices about advertising, consent, misinformation, attention, or data markets as responsible infrastructure or reform rather than as a situated institutional position. Permission.io frames contested choices about advertising, consent, misinformation, attention, or data markets as responsible infrastructure or reform rather than as a situated institutional position. That warrants a Ideological Disavowal penalty because the cited model still exposes users, creators, or the public to data capture, manipulative incentives, opacity, identity pressure, or a fragile private dependency. The penalty is limited where the model is opt-in, privacy-improving relative to adtech peers, or reform-oriented rather than purely extractive. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence Permission.io frames contested choices about advertising, consent, misinformation, attention, or data markets as responsible infrastructure or reform rather than as a situated institutional position. [12]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Cost Transparency ? Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.	1 / 3	Permission.io's public materials make parts of the advertising, reward, pledge, or creator-payment exchange more visible than conventional adtech. Permission.io's public materials make parts of the advertising, reward, pledge, or creator-payment exchange more visible than conventional adtech. This justifies limited Cost Transparency credit because the practice makes privacy, consent, criticism, transparency, or fairer exchange more available than the advertising baseline. The credit remains partial because the record does not show a durable, enforceable, institution-wide right. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Attention, consent, advertising, and anti-surveillance batch calibrated against browser, adtech, open-source, and media-infrastructure entries. Linked evidence Permission.io's public materials make parts of the advertising, reward, pledge, or creator-payment exchange more visible than conventional adtech. [7]

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 75/100

12 verified linked claims 12 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 12/15 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 17/20

12 verified linked claims

Source quality 12/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 9/18

12 direct claims across 15 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 8/10

12/15 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Permission.io is organized around the structure described in its public materials rather than democratic ownership by all affected users or workers.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

2Permission.io's public materials show a governance model where ordinary users, advertisers, members, or pledge participants do not have full binding control over institutional direction.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

3Permission.io's model changes the flow of advertising, attention, data, or creator revenue compared with ordinary surveillance advertising.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

4Permission.io operates in or against the advertising and attention market by changing how consent, tracking, ad placement, creator funding, or marketing ethics work.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

5Permission.io's core product or program is aimed at changing advertising, tracking, data markets, or marketing practice rather than simply maximizing hidden behavioral extraction.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

6Permission.io's model can scale through software, standards, pledges, advertising buyers, or data-market infrastructure, with different accountability risks depending on control structure.

Scale Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission FAQsGeneral web source · 58%

7Permission.io's public materials make parts of the advertising, reward, pledge, or creator-payment exchange more visible than conventional adtech.

Cost Transparency Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

8Permission.io's model uses recurring subscription, reward, token, or account mechanics that can profit from inertia or continued participation.

Subscription Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

9Permission.io's public model requires users to understand complex advertising, data, token, privacy, or pledge mechanics before they can judge the exchange clearly.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

10Permission.io's public framing invites users or participants to identify with a privacy, rewards, ethical-marketing, or data-ownership posture that also benefits institutional adoption.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

11Permission.io's model processes attention, advertising, browsing, personal data, or transaction signals, making surveillance-capture risk directly relevant even where consent or on-device processing reduces harm.

Surveillance Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission privacy policyOfficial self-description · 68%

12Permission.io frames contested choices about advertising, consent, misinformation, attention, or data markets as responsible infrastructure or reform rather than as a situated institutional position.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Permission FAQsGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

BQUALIFIED47 The Ethical Move ethical marketing movement · same market BQUALIFIED45 Conscious Advertising Network advertising ethics coalition · same market

Competitors

BQUALIFIED47 The Ethical Move ethical marketing movement · same market BQUALIFIED45 Conscious Advertising Network advertising ethics coalition · same market DEXTRACTIVE12 Gener8 Ads private data-rewards advertising company · same market DEXTRACTIVE12 Killi / Reklaim consumer data marketplace · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Permission.io Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log