A report says Meta has paid at least 29 accounts with a history of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric for Facebook posts ahead of the US midterm elections. The payments come through a scheme that rewards popular content, raising questions about whether a drive for engagement can also reward outrage. Here's how the programme works and why it matters to creators and readers.

Essential Takeaways

  • Reported payments: Uncloseted Media and The 19th reported that at least 29 accounts with histories of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric received money from Meta.
  • How creators earn: Facebook Content Monetization pays eligible creators based on how their public posts perform.
  • Several formats count: The programme covers text, Stories, Reels, longer videos and photos.
  • The concern: Critics say engagement-based payments may encourage inflammatory posts and rage bait.
  • Meta's stated approach: The company has also announced efforts to curb spammy content on Facebook.

A creator payment scheme faces an awkward question

The central issue isn't simply that Facebook pays creators. It's what happens when money is linked to posts that attract attention, and when some of the accounts reportedly benefiting have a history of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. Uncloseted Media and The 19th reported that at least 29 such accounts were paid ahead of the US midterm elections.

That finding puts Facebook's Content Monetization programme under a sharper spotlight. A post doesn't have to be a polished video to earn; public text posts and photos can count too, making the system part of the everyday Facebook feed. (Uncloseted Media; The 19th)

How Facebook Content Monetization works

Meta launched its streamlined Facebook monetisation programme in 2024. The company's announcement said eligible creators could earn from a mix of public formats, including Stories, Reels, longer videos, photos and text posts. (Meta)

For creators, the appeal is obvious: one programme can cover several types of content, rather than making earnings depend on a single format. Some creators celebrated its launch and reported that their income rose considerably, while the model also ties potential earnings to how audiences respond. (Meta; The Hollywood Reporter)

When reach becomes a reason to provoke

A post that sparks strong reactions can travel quickly. That's useful for a creator trying to build an audience, but critics argue that payment linked to performance could make provocative material financially attractive, including what is commonly called rage bait. (ABC News Australia)

The concern isn't unique to Facebook, but the platform's broad mix of formats gives the debate a particular texture. A short text post can be as much a bid for attention as a slick video, and readers may encounter both in the same feed. (ABC News Australia; Meta)

What Meta says about spammy content

Meta has separately announced measures aimed at cracking down on spammy content on Facebook. That shows the company recognises that low-quality or manipulative posts can affect people's experience of the platform, although the available reporting doesn't establish how those measures apply to the accounts identified in the election-related investigation. (Meta)

That distinction matters. Measures against spam and a payment programme based on content performance are related questions, but they aren't the same thing. The reporting raises concerns about who was paid and what incentives the system creates; it doesn't, by itself, explain how Meta assessed each account or post. (Meta; Uncloseted Media; The 19th)

What readers and creators should watch next

For creators, the practical takeaway is to understand the rules of any platform programme and not assume that attention alone is a durable business plan. A surge in engagement can be tempting, but building trust with an audience is less fragile than chasing the next controversy. (Meta; The Hollywood Reporter)

For readers, it's worth remembering that a post's visibility doesn't necessarily reflect its accuracy or importance. As election campaigns gather pace, pause before sharing material designed to make you angry; sometimes the strongest reaction is exactly what a post is trying to earn. (ABC News Australia; Uncloseted Media; The 19th)

The bigger test is whether platforms can reward creators without making outrage feel like the safest route to a paycheque.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: