An investigation by Australia’s ABC News has reignited a major ethical debate surrounding Meta: whether the technology giant’s social media algorithms and monetization systems are actively rewarding racism, neo-Nazism and extreme conspiracy theories.
The investigation, based on publicly available data from the nonprofit What To Fix’s archive, claims that Meta’s creator payment programs provided revenue to far-right activists, neo-Nazis and conspiracy theory promoters whose content generated engagement on Facebook.
Among those identified as receiving payments was Hugo Lennon, a far-right Australian activist who has been photographed alongside known neo-Nazis. Lennon was recently removed by police in Melbourne after shouting racist abuse at Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a visit to Australia.
A video of that incident was uploaded to his Facebook page, which had been approved for monetization under Meta’s official program since September 2025, according to the investigation.
ABC also identified other pages and outlets linked to racism and white supremacist movements that allegedly received payments from Meta. The extremist news site The Noticer, described by critics as a major platform for local neo-Nazi groups and shared by some politicians, reportedly received payments beginning in November 2025 despite its account on X being suspended for violating the platform’s rules.
Other accounts, including the anti-immigration movement Anti-Immigration March for Australia and activist Monica Smith, who promotes conspiracy theories and misleading medical claims, were also reportedly included among recipients of Meta advertising revenue.
The monetization problem
Meta’s Content Monetization program allows approved creators and publishers to receive a share of advertising revenue generated from their videos, Reels, images and posts.
In 2025 alone, Meta distributed around $3 billion to approximately 16.2 million accounts worldwide, meaning creators whose content attracts large audiences can earn money directly from the engagement they generate.
That business model is built around one central metric: engagement.
Researchers studying social media platforms have long warned that provocative, extreme and emotionally charged content often generates the highest levels of reaction. The result is a system in which content designed to anger, shock or divide audiences can receive greater visibility and, in some cases, greater financial rewards.
Hugo Lennon
(Photo: Reuters)
The phenomenon has become known as “rage bait” — content deliberately designed to trigger strong emotional responses and increase interaction.
Critics argue that this creates a structural incentive for creators to produce increasingly extreme material, regardless of whether the reaction is positive or negative.
The ABC findings raise questions about enforcement of Meta’s own policies. According to the company’s rules, content involving certain forms of hateful material, controversial social issues and medical misinformation should not qualify for monetization.
Yet the investigation alleges that some accounts continued generating revenue despite publishing content that appeared to violate those standards.
A broader social media problem
The controversy is not limited to Meta.
The revenue-sharing model adopted across major platforms has repeatedly faced criticism for potentially rewarding harmful content. X’s creator payment system, launched under Elon Musk, came under scrutiny after reports that accounts sharing antisemitic material, Holocaust denial and hate speech had received payments.
Google and YouTube have also faced years of criticism over monetizing conspiracy videos and extremist content, although YouTube operates a broader demonetization system that removes advertising eligibility from content deemed unsuitable.
(Photo: Shutterstock)
Unlike some platforms, Meta publishes disclosures about some of its monetization partners, which ironically made it possible for researchers to identify the alleged failures.
The problem reflects a broader transformation in social media economics.
Early social platforms relied mainly on general advertising models. During the 2010s, they shifted toward the “attention economy,” where algorithms were optimized to maximize user engagement and time spent on platforms.
Major advertising crises, including YouTube’s 2017 “Adpocalypse,” in which major brands withdrew advertising after their campaigns appeared alongside extremist content, forced platforms to introduce stronger automated filtering and review systems.
Meta pushes back
In response to the findings, Meta said it maintains clear policies that all creators must follow and that violations can result in penalties, including suspension.
The company also said there is a distinction between offensive expression and content that directly encourages real-world violence, arguing that it is not the role of a technology company to act as a “style police” for offensive opinions.
Critics, however, argue that the issue is not simply whether Meta hosts controversial content, but whether it financially incentivizes and amplifies it.
They point to previous cases in which online platforms played a role in spreading extremist narratives that later contributed to real-world harassment or violence.
The latest revelations are likely to increase regulatory pressure on technology companies, as governments and lawmakers debate whether platforms should face greater legal responsibility for content they do not merely host, but also distribute and financially reward.