Shoppers aren't the only ones following the money online. Meta's Facebook Content Monetisation programme is paying creators whose posts have included anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, extremist material and political misinformation, raising fresh questions about platform accountability as midterm elections approach.

Essential Takeaways

  • 29 accounts identified: Investigators found anti-LGBTQ+ histories among accounts invited to Meta's monetisation programme.
  • Anger drives attention: Researchers say inflammatory posts can attract the engagement that fuels creator payouts.
  • Rules appear inconsistent: Several accounts remain enrolled despite policies covering hate speech, misinformation and political content.
  • The programme is huge: More than 18 million accounts have reportedly been identified in the scheme.
  • Small creators can earn too: Meta's bonus incentives have offered payments for regular posting, reels and cross-posting.

Meta's creator payments put controversy centre stage

Meta's Facebook Content Monetisation programme was designed to make Facebook more attractive to creators, particularly as the platform competes with newer social apps and an older user base. In practice, it has also created a financial pathway for accounts that thrive on confrontation.

An investigation by Uncloseted Media and The 19th identified 29 accounts with anti-LGBTQ+ histories that had been invited into the programme. The group reportedly includes Libs of TikTok, Benny Johnson, StoneToss, Candace Owens and Turning Point USA, alongside other prominent conservative and extremist-linked accounts.

The concern isn't simply that unpleasant posts exist online. It's that a platform may be rewarding content that generates fear, outrage and pile-ons. As the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported, Meta's programme has also been linked to accounts promoting white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideas.

Why ragebait can become a business model

The mechanics are straightforward. Meta places advertising around eligible content, gathers the revenue and pays creators according to performance. Posts that provoke instant reactions, furious comments or endless sharing can therefore become commercially attractive, even when the conversation is toxic.

According to the Economic Times, the debate centres on the way platforms now pay creators directly rather than leaving brands to negotiate every partnership. That shift gives Meta more control, but it also means the company carries greater responsibility for deciding which voices benefit.

There are eye-catching sums at the top end. Some creators told The Hollywood Reporter they were earning tens of thousands of dollars a month, while others reported six-figure monthly payouts. Most accounts won't come close to that, but even smaller bonuses can encourage creators to post more often and push harder.

The incentives reach beyond celebrity influencers

Meta has also courted smaller creators through its breakthrough bonus initiative. Participants have reportedly been offered as much as $5,000 and a route into Facebook Content Monetisation if they begin posting regularly.

That can make the programme tempting for people whose other social channels pay poorly. But the experience isn't uniformly positive. LGBTQ+ educator SK Smigiel told investigators that posting on Facebook brought overwhelmingly hostile engagement, despite initial payments for completing posting targets.

The episode highlights an awkward truth about creator economics. A reward system doesn't just pay for polished videos or useful advice; it can pay for attention itself. And attention is often loudest when somebody feels attacked.

Do Meta's policies match what users see?

Meta's monetisation rules say content can lose or be denied advertising revenue when it handles subjects such as sexual orientation, race, religion or political affiliation in a polarising or inflammatory way. The rules also prohibit hateful conduct and say misinformation judged false by an external fact-checker can't be monetised.

Yet researchers found accounts with apparent histories of anti-LGBTQ+ harassment still enrolled. The Pink Times reported that the issue has become particularly pressing as misleading political claims spread ahead of the US midterm elections.

The enforcement problem is made harder by Meta's decision to end its third-party fact-checking system in the US. If misinformation is no longer assessed through the same independent process, users may struggle to understand how posts are being reviewed, or whether the rules are being applied consistently.

What this means before the midterms

The timing matters. Investigators found posts linking Democrats to election fraud and repeating claims about immigration and gender identity, while researchers warn that algorithmic rewards can magnify exactly the material most likely to inflame voters.

The wider concern is democratic rather than merely commercial. When creators are paid for engagement, false or abusive claims can compete with careful reporting on an uneven playing field. As coverage from SOFX and MetaAdvisor.eu has underlined, the controversy reaches beyond individual personalities and into the design of the payment system itself.

For users, the practical lesson is simple: a post appearing frequently doesn't necessarily mean it's reliable, popular or independently verified. It may be performing very well for the platform's engagement metrics. A pause before sharing, plus a quick check against reputable reporting, remains a remarkably useful bit of digital hygiene.

Meta now faces a choice between tighter oversight and continued growth at almost any cost. For people targeted by these campaigns, it won't feel like an abstract policy debate. It will feel personal, repetitive and exhausting.

It's worth asking not just who gets heard online, but who gets paid to keep shouting.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: