Banned but still paid: How disinformation accounts keep monetising on Facebook

Banned but still paid: How disinformation accounts keep monetising on Facebook

Audit reveals persistent monetisation of fake news despite policy breaches

Banned but still paid - In a recent analysis, researchers have uncovered that entities spreading misinformation continue to generate revenue on Facebook despite repeated policy violations. The study, conducted by What to Fix, a tech policy non-profit, and Raskrinkavanje, a Bosnian fact-checking group, examined over 290 Facebook pages in Bosnia that had been flagged for distributing deceptive content at least ten times by one of Meta’s fact-checking partners. The findings suggest a critical gap in Facebook’s ability to fully cut off disinformation creators from earning income, even after they are identified as repeat offenders.

“Our findings raise important questions about Meta’s ability to fulfill its commitment to demonetise repeat disinformation offenders,” the study found.

The research highlighted that 51 of the accounts flagged by fact-checkers for promoting false information had a history of participating in at least one of Facebook’s monetization programs. Notably, one-third of these accounts were able to register for multiple monetization channels before 2024, when Meta consolidated its various monetization streams into a single invite-only program. Additionally, nine accounts were directly invited by Meta to join this new initiative, which bases payments on the performance of their content.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has long been criticized for its struggles to curb the spread of misinformation. This issue came to light during the 2016 U.S. election, prompting the company to collaborate with third-party fact-checkers to verify content. However, the report notes that Meta has since scaled back these verification capabilities in some regions, replacing them with Community Notes—a feature allowing users to add comments to clarify or flag potentially misleading posts. While this tool is intended to improve transparency, it appears to have limited impact on preventing monetization of disinformation.

What constitutes fake content under Meta’s current guidelines?

According to the report, Meta’s current policy prohibits the monetization of content labeled as “fake” by its fact-checking partners or that spreads clickbait. The company defines fake content as any material “that has no basis in fact,” encompassing elements like fabricated quotes, implausible claims, conspiracy theories, or misleadingly used real media to support unrelated events. Despite these definitions, the study found that Meta’s enforcement mechanisms remain inconsistent, particularly when it comes to repeat offenders.

The research emphasized that Meta does not specify the exact criteria or thresholds used to determine whether an account should face repeat restrictions. This lack of clarity allows disinformation creators to exploit loopholes, regaining monetization access even after being identified as problematic. For instance, over 50% of the restricted accounts were reinstated within a month, while some suspensions lasted only two days. This pattern suggests that Meta’s current approach may not effectively penalize persistent offenders.

What To Fix’s analysis noted that while some accounts were demonetized or suspended, a significant majority—84%—were able to rejoin monetization programs. This discrepancy raises concerns about the platform’s ability to enforce its policies consistently. “This suggests that Meta may have allowed restricted actors to continue to monetise content on Facebook despite having accurately identified them as having violated its monetisation policies on a repeated basis,” the report concluded.

Meta’s response and the study’s limitations

Euronews Next contacted Meta for comment but received no immediate reply. The study’s authors acknowledged that their research has certain constraints. For example, Meta does not maintain a comprehensive database of account monetization details, which limits the fact-checking organizations’ ability to track the full scope of disinformation activities. Instead, they rely on ongoing disclosures and an internal archive of fact-checks to identify instances where accounts were monetized.

This limitation means that the study’s findings may not capture all cases of disinformation monetization, as Meta could have worked with other fact-checkers in different markets to address similar issues. Nevertheless, the report urged the European Union to investigate whether Meta is adhering to its obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Code of Conduct on Disinformation, which requires the platform to “demonetise disinformation.”

The study also highlighted the broader implications of Meta’s policies. By allowing disinformation accounts to continue monetizing their content, the platform inadvertently reinforces the financial incentives for spreading falsehoods. This could undermine efforts to combat misinformation, particularly in regions where fake news has significant societal impact. The report’s authors argue that without clearer thresholds for repeat violations, Meta’s commitment to demonetizing disinformation remains unfulfilled.

Context and challenges in content moderation

Meta’s approach to content moderation has evolved over the years. After the 2016 election, the company launched partnerships with fact-checkers to identify and label deceptive content. These efforts aimed to reduce the spread of misinformation by demoting or removing harmful posts. However, the company has since shifted its strategy, introducing features like Community Notes to decentralize the process. While these tools empower users, they may not be as effective in targeting large-scale disinformation campaigns.

One key challenge is the balance between free speech and content control. Meta’s monetization programs reward creators who produce engaging content, regardless of its accuracy. This creates a scenario where accounts flagged for spreading false information can still generate income, incentivizing them to continue their activities. The report suggests that the platform’s current system prioritizes engagement metrics over factual integrity, which may explain why many disinformation accounts persist despite policy breaches.

Furthermore, the consolidation of monetization programs into an invite-only format in 2024 has raised questions about accessibility. While this change may streamline the process, it could also favor larger accounts with more resources. Smaller creators, who might be more vulnerable to misinformation, could be excluded from the system, reducing their ability to compete with more established actors. The study’s findings indicate that even with these adjustments, Meta’s enforcement of its own rules remains inconsistent.

Meta’s reliance on third-party fact-checkers also plays a role in the persistence of disinformation. While these organizations are tasked with identifying fake content, their reach and resources are limited. The report notes that the lack of a centralized database makes it difficult to track the full extent of monetization activities across the platform. This fragmented approach could allow disinformation to slip through the cracks, especially in markets where Meta’s partnerships are less robust.

Implications for the Digital Services Act

The study’s authors argue that Meta’s actions call into question its compliance with the European Union’s regulations. The DSA mandates that platforms take steps to reduce the spread of harmful content, including demonetizing accounts that repeatedly violate guidelines. The Code of Conduct on Disinformation, a separate framework, also emphasizes the importance of financial disincentives for misinformation creators. However, the findings suggest that Meta may not be fully meeting these commitments.

Despite the report’s limitations, its implications are significant. It underscores the need for greater transparency in Meta’s monetization policies and highlights the potential for disinformation to thrive under current enforcement mechanisms. The researchers recommend that the EU closely monitor Meta’s adherence to its own rules, ensuring that the company’s policies align with the broader goal of combating misinformation. This could involve requiring Meta to provide more detailed data on monetization activities or expanding its partnerships with fact-checking organizations to cover a wider range of accounts.

As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the role of platforms like Facebook in shaping public discourse becomes increasingly critical. The study serves as a reminder that while Meta has taken steps to address misinformation, its efforts may still fall short in preventing the monetization of disinformation. This ongoing issue not only affects the spread of false information but also raises concerns about the financial sustainability of disinformation campaigns and the credibility of online content.

In the end, the report’s core message is clear: Meta’s current system allows disinformation actors to remain profitable even after being identified as repeat offenders. Without stronger enforcement measures and clearer guidelines, the platform risks perpetuating the spread of false information, undermining its commitment to content integrity. As the EU continues to refine its digital regulations, the effectiveness of Meta’s policies will be a key factor in determining whether the platform can truly combat the rise of online disinformation.