It is a sobering reality of our digital age that the very platforms designed to connect us have inadvertently created profitable ecosystems for those who thrive on deception. A recent, deeply concerning study conducted by the tech policy non-profit What to Fix and the Bosnian fact-checking organization Raskrinkavanje has pulled back the curtain on how disinformation actors continue to rake in money on Facebook, even after being repeatedly flagged for spreading falsehoods. By analyzing over 290 Facebook pages that had been flagged at least ten times by fact-checkers, the researchers uncovered a pattern that suggests the digital gatekeepers are failing to hold repeat offenders accountable. The findings paint a picture of a system where internal platform policies are frequently bypassed, allowing those who profit from lies to keep their revenue streams flowing, all while the parent company, Meta, remains under the global microscope for its inability to effectively curate the information environment.
At the heart of the issue is the disturbing frequency with which “repeat offenders” have been allowed to participate in monetization programs. According to the analysis, fifty-one of the problematic accounts had documented histories of being enrolled in Facebook’s financial incentive schemes. Even more alarming is the discovery that one in three of these accounts were savvy enough to snag multiple streams of income before Meta streamlined its programs in 2024. Perhaps most damning is the fact that nine of these accounts were actually invited by Meta to join a new, performance-based payment program—essentially rewarding these actors with cash for the engagement their misleading content generates. This discovery fundamentally challenges Meta’s stated commitment to demonetizing those who spread misinformation, casting serious doubt on whether their internal enforcement mechanisms are functioning as anything more than window dressing.
Meta has long struggled to strike a balance between allowing free expression and curbing the viral spread of fake, sensationalist content. Since the chaotic information landscape of the 2016 US election, the company has experimented with various tools—from partnering with third-party organizations to the recent roll-out of “Community Notes”—to try to manage the tide of dishonesty. While the company claims to explicitly prohibit monetizing content that is labeled as “fake” or “clickbait,” the study highlights a critical lack of transparency regarding how these rules are actually applied. There is no clear, public threshold for when a “repeat offender” faces definitive consequences, leaving a murky gray area where bad actors can hide behind procedural ambiguity and platform loopholes.
The revolving door of “suspension” is perhaps the most frustrating finding of the entire investigation. While it is true that some of the identified pages were eventually hit with restrictions or outright bans for their policy violations, the study found that a staggering 84% of these accounts were able to regain access to monetization privileges. In many cases, these punishments were little more than a “slap on the wrist,” with over half of the restricted accounts returning to full earning status within just thirty days. In extreme instances, some users were back to profiting from their content after a suspension of only two days. This pattern strongly suggests that Meta’s enforcement is not a deterrent, but rather a temporary inconvenience that does little to stop the cycle of misinformation.
The researchers concede that their study has limits, largely due to the fact that Meta does not provide public, granular data regarding account monetization. By relying on a database of disclosures and internal archives, the team had to assemble a puzzle with missing pieces, acknowledging that the actual scale of the problem could be even larger than what they captured. The lack of corporate transparency makes it difficult for independent auditors to hold the tech giant accountable, turning the platform into a “black box” where decisions about profitability and policy are made behind closed doors, away from the public gaze.
Ultimately, these findings serve as a clarion call for regulatory bodies, particularly the European Union, to step up their oversight of Big Tech. If companies like Meta cannot self-regulate effectively, then the principles outlined in the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Code of Conduct on Disinformation must be enforced with greater rigor. The report suggests that it is no longer enough to rely on voluntary commitments or corporate promises; we need meaningful, transparent accountability. When the business model of a global platform incentivizes the spread of inflammatory, fake, and divisive content, the responsibility shifted from a choice to an obligation. The integrity of our public discourse depends on ensuring that those who profit from the corruption of truth are no longer allowed to operate with impunity.