Meta’s monetisation system pays extremist creators and treats enforcement gaps as policy, not accident
Meta doesn't just tolerate extremist creators — it pays them, and calls the moderation gap a feature not a bug
ABC Verify traces Facebook payouts to a neo-Nazi-linked agitator, a far-right site, an anti-immigration page and an anti-vax figure, all while Meta says offensiveness is not its job to police
This isn't a moderation failure Meta is scrambling to fix — it's a monetisation model that structurally rewards rage-bait, and Meta's own statement ('not our role to police offensiveness') confirms it is a deliberate policy choice, not an oversight.
Who Meta is paying, and since when
None of the four responded to ABC's requests for comment.
Content vs. Meta's own stated rules
Facebook policy: content on 'debated social issues' such as race 'may face reduced or restricted monetisation'.
Facebook policy: 'misleading medical information' is 'ineligible to monetise'.
Lennon's monetised videos include racist abuse directed at India's PM and references to replacement theory and remigration.
Smit's monetised page features vaccine misinformation and sells 'radiation protection' bracelets.
The Noticer briefly stopped earning between 11 Jan and 15 Feb for 'unknown reasons' — then resumed.
Scale of the program
Meta does not publish per-account revenue
The business-relationship argument
Victoire Rio of What To Fix, whose archive of Meta's own disclosures underpins this investigation, makes the sharpest structural point: once Meta pays royalties to a creator, it is in a direct commercial relationship with them — which raises liability questions beyond ordinary hosting. Her broader finding: accounts linked to sanctioned entities have turned up in these programs before, and the recurring issue is not policy wording but enforcement quality.
Meta's defence vs. the critique
Meta's position
- Clear policies exist and apply to all monetisation users
- Violators face temporary or permanent earning bans
- Repeated breaches lead to removal from the platform
- Distinguishes offensive speech from content risking offline violence
- 'Not Meta's role to police offensiveness'
- More transparent about payments than YouTube, TikTok, Twitter/X
Critics' position
- Engagement-driven ad model financially rewards rage-bait by design (Kaz Ross)
- Enforcement clearly fails even against Meta's own written rules
- Paying known rule-breakers is 'morally bankrupt', not neutral hosting (Ross)
- Commercial/royalty relationship implies shared liability (Rio)
- Transparency bar Meta clears is 'still very low' (Rio)