Meta Pays Far-Right and Anti-Vaccine Pages in Facebook Monetisation Programs
Facebook’s parent company Meta is directly paying several controversial content creators, including a white nationalist with neo-Nazi links and a prominent a...
Facebook’s parent company Meta is directly paying several controversial content creators, including a white nationalist with neo-Nazi links and a prominent anti-vaxxer, according to an ABC NEWS Verify investigation published on August 6, 2026.
The findings cut to a sharp question for the platform: how a company that says it bars harmful content can still send money to pages whose posts appear to breach its own monetisation rules. Meta would not comment on the individual pages, but said it has “clear policies in place which anyone using our monetisation tools must comply with” and that “it is not Meta’s role to police offensiveness.”
Money flowing to agitators
Among the creators identified is Hugo Lennon, a far-right agitator who was formally moved on by Victoria Police after shouting profanities and racist abuse at Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to Melbourne last month. Lennon has been receiving revenue through Facebook’s “Content Monetization” program since September 2025.
That detail lands hard. Facebook is not just hosting the pages. It is helping pay them.
The ABC investigation found that several controversial Australian Facebook pages are benefiting directly from Meta-run monetisation programs. In some cases, the content appears to run directly against Facebook’s own policies on content monetisation. That puts Meta in a familiar but awkward position, one faced by major platforms across the world as they try to balance creator payouts, moderation rules and the spread of toxic content.
Why it matters beyond Australia
The issue reaches well beyond one country or one platform. Across the global social media industry, companies have spent years promising tougher enforcement against hate speech, harassment and health misinformation while simultaneously building payment systems to keep creators posting. When those systems reward agitators, the incentives point in the wrong direction.
Meta’s response was brief and defensive. The company said it sets clear rules for anyone using its monetisation tools and drew a line between offensiveness and policy breaches. But the ABC findings suggest that line can be blurry in practice, especially when controversial figures attract attention, engagement and, now, income.
For regulators and users watching from other markets, the story is a reminder that monetisation is not a side issue. It can be the engine. And once a platform starts paying the people driving outrage, the business model becomes part of the problem.
“It is not Meta’s role to police offensiveness,” the company said.
