Meta is facing renewed scrutiny after an investigation by Australian public broadcaster ABC News Verify found that Facebook's invitation-only Content Monetisation programme has been paying advertising revenue to several controversial creators, including accounts linked to neo-Nazi groups and anti-vaccine activism.
The investigation identified monetised Facebook pages that appeared to conflict with Meta's own monetisation policies, which state that misleading medical information is ineligible for advertising revenue and that some debated social issues may face reduced or restricted monetisation.
Meta said the invitation-only programme paid almost US$3 billion (£2.3 billion) to an estimated 16.2 million monetised accounts during 2025. Because creators earn money based on the performance of eligible public content, critics argue the system may financially reward posts that generate strong reactions and high engagement.
Controversial Pages Received Payments
Among the monetised accounts identified was Hugo Lennon, a far-right agitator who was removed by Victoria Police after directing racist abuse at Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a visit to Melbourne. The report said Lennon has been receiving revenue through Facebook's Content Monetisation programme since September 2025.
It also identified The Noticer, a far-right Australian website that regularly publishes articles promoting white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideologies, together with a Facebook page promoting the anti-immigration group March for Australia, both of which joined the programme during late 2025.
Another account identified belonged to Monica Smit, founder of anti-lockdown group Reignite Democracy Australia. The report said Smit joined the programme in September 2025, although her Facebook page had reportedly earned advertising revenue through other monetisation tools since 2017. It also said her page featured vaccine misinformation while promoting products marketed as 'radiation protection' bracelets.
None of the four responded to requests for comment.
Critics Question Enforcement
Meta says Content Monetisation allows invited creators to earn advertising revenue from eligible public reels, photographs, stories and text posts.
The report found several of the pages examined appeared to conflict with Meta's published monetisation rules, which prohibit advertising revenue for misleading medical information and place restrictions on some controversial social issues.
Victoire Rio, executive director of technology accountability organisation What To Fix, said the programme effectively places Meta in a commercial relationship with participating creators.
Independent right-wing extremism researcher Dr Kaz Ross argued that Meta's engagement-driven payment model rewards material that provokes strong reactions because highly engaging posts typically attract more interaction from users.
Meta Defends Its Policies
Meta declined to comment on the specific accounts identified in the investigation but said creators using its monetisation tools must comply with clear platform policies.
The company said creators who breach its Community Standards or monetisation policies can lose access to advertising revenue, either temporarily or permanently. It also said it distinguishes between speech that may be offensive and content capable of contributing to real-world harm, saying: 'Such speech may be offensive to many, but it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness.'
Meta remains one of the few major technology companies to publish information about monetised creators. However, accountability group What To Fix argues that the findings raise broader questions about how consistently those rules are enforced and whether greater transparency should become standard across the wider social media industry.
