Shoppers aren’t the only ones following the money online. Meta is paying creators through Facebook’s monetisation programme, while critics say controversial anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and political misinformation are benefiting from the same engagement-driven system. With elections approaching, the debate over who gets rewarded, and why, is becoming harder to ignore.

Essential takeaways

  • Meta’s incentive scheme: Facebook’s creator monetisation programme pays eligible accounts according to the engagement their posts attract.
  • Controversial creators included: Investigations have identified accounts accused of spreading anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, extremist ideas or political misinformation.
  • Outrage performs well: Angry, divisive posts often generate strong reactions, creating a financial incentive to keep publishing them.
  • Rules remain unclear: Meta’s policies restrict hateful and misleading content, but outside researchers say enforcement is difficult to track.
  • Election stakes are rising: Critics fear monetised misinformation could shape political conversations as midterm campaigns gather pace.

Meta’s creator payments put outrage in the spotlight

Facebook’s monetisation programme was designed to make the platform more attractive to creators, particularly as competition from newer social networks intensifies. The basic proposition is simple: publish content, attract attention and receive a share of the resulting revenue.

The trouble begins when attention is generated by provocation rather than useful information. Investigations by ABC News Australia and SOFX have reported that Facebook’s payment systems can include creators known for inflammatory or extremist material, raising questions about whether the platform is rewarding content it claims to restrict.

For creators, the appeal is obvious. A post that sparks anger can travel quickly, bringing comments, shares and repeat views. For audiences, however, the experience can feel like walking into a room where somebody's deliberately knocking over furniture just to keep everyone watching.

Why anti-LGBTQ content keeps finding an audience

Meta has policies against hateful conduct and says certain misleading or inflammatory material shouldn't qualify for monetisation. Yet watchdog reporting has repeatedly documented anti-LGBTQ narratives circulating on Facebook and Instagram, including the use of dehumanising language and baseless accusations aimed at queer people.

Media Matters has reported that Meta has continued to profit from advertisements appearing alongside posts that portray LGBTQ people as threats or “groomers”, despite the company’s stated restrictions. LGBTQ Nation has also examined how groups such as Gays Against Groomers have used Facebook to spread claims critics describe as misleading and hostile.

That matters because monetisation changes the purpose of a post. It isn't merely a loud opinion shouted into the digital wind; it can become part of a business model. The more reliably a creator turns outrage into interaction, the more valuable that style of publishing may appear to the platform.

The business model rewards engagement, not calm

Meta's system reflects a wider shift in online media. Platforms increasingly sit between advertisers and creators, collecting the revenue and deciding which accounts receive access to payments, bonuses and promotional tools.

Researchers cited in reporting by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SOFX say this creates a powerful incentive for creators to chase reaction. Calm explanation may be worthwhile, but fury is often faster, louder and easier to measure. A sensational post can produce a busy comment section within minutes, even when its claims are weak.

This is also why moderation alone may not solve the problem. Removing a handful of posts doesn't necessarily change the financial logic that produced them. Unless systems measure more than clicks and comments, creators may continue testing the limits with increasingly dramatic claims.

Election misinformation adds a sharper edge

The stakes become higher during an election campaign. False claims about voter fraud, political opponents or public policy can spread quickly, especially when they are packaged as urgent warnings rather than considered arguments.

ProPublica has documented how political advertising on Facebook and Instagram can exploit platform systems and reach audiences with limited transparency. Meanwhile, reporting on Meta's approach to political content has highlighted the difficulty of assessing who is paying, who is being targeted and how widely misleading messages travel.

That uncertainty is uncomfortable for voters. People need to know whether a post is an independently produced opinion, a paid political message or content amplified because it performs well commercially. Without that context, the platform's design can make popularity look like credibility.

What could make Facebook monetisation safer?

One practical step would be clearer labelling. Users should be able to see which accounts receive payments, what kind of content is eligible and how violations affect access to revenue. Reporting tools for monetisation breaches would also give audiences a more direct way to flag patterns rather than isolated posts.

Regulators are looking at similar questions. The European Union's Digital Services Act requires large platforms to assess and reduce systemic risks, including harms linked to how content is recommended and amplified. That broader approach is important because the issue isn't only what an individual creator says; it’s also what the platform chooses to finance and distribute.

Meta could also review whether engagement should be the dominant measure of success. Healthier indicators might include accuracy, original reporting and user wellbeing, although those are harder to calculate than a simple view count. Still, difficult isn't the same as impossible, particularly when the alternative is paying the loudest voices to keep shouting.

The coming election cycle will test whether platforms treat monetisation as a neutral creator tool or as a system with real civic consequences. For users, the useful habit is to pause before sharing a furious post and ask who benefits from the reaction.

A safer feed starts with knowing what the platform rewards.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: