The Lucrative Lies: How Disinformation Actors Profit on Facebook Despite Policy Violations
A disturbing new study reveals a significant gap between Facebook’s public commitments to combat disinformation and its enforcement actions, particularly when it comes to the financial incentives that fuel the spread of false information. The report, published in June 2026 by the tech policy non-profit What to Fix and the Bosnian fact-checking organization Raskrinkavanje, exposes how actors repeatedly caught disseminating fake news have been able to continue earning money directly from Meta, Facebook’s parent company. This investigation, focusing on over 290 Facebook pages in Bosnia and Herzegovina that were flagged for distributing fake content at least ten times by Meta’s own fact-checking partners, uncovers a system where policy breaches do not reliably lead to financial consequences, allowing the very ecosystem Meta claims to fight to thrive and profit.
The Core Findings: Monetization Amidst Repeated Violations
The study’s most alarming discovery is that financial rewards from Facebook are not being systematically severed from bad actors. The analysis found that 51 of the accounts flagged for promoting disinformation at least ten times had a history of being enrolled in at least one of Meta’ s monetization programs. This means creators of proven, repeated fake content were being paid through ad revenue shares, bonuses, or other incentives. Furthermore, one in three of these accounts had managed to register for multiple monetization channels before Meta consolidated its programs in 2024. Even under the newer, stricter “invite-only” program, the report identified nine accounts that had been directly invited by Meta to join, a program that pays creators based on the performance of their content. This directly contradicts Meta’s stated policy of prohibiting content labeled as “fake” by its fact-checking partners from receiving monetization.
Meta’s Evolving and Inconsistent Enforcement Landscape
This failure occurs against a backdrop of long-standing criticism Meta has faced in both the United States and Europe for its struggle to curb disinformation. In response to crises like the 2016 U.S. election, Meta established partnerships with third-party fact-checkers. However, the company has recently rolled back these capabilities in some regions, replacing them with “Community Notes”—a crowd-sourced system where users add context. While Meta’s official policy defines “fake” content broadly (including conspiracy theories, fabricated quotes, and doctored media) and bans it from monetization, the study highlights a critical lack of transparency. Meta does not publicly specify what thresholds trigger “repeat offender” restrictions, creating ambiguity. The enforcement that does occur appears transient; while some offending accounts were temporarily demonetized or suspended, a staggering 84% were able to regain access to monetization, with over half returning within a month and some suspensions lasting a mere two days.
The Systemic Problem: Incentives Outweigh Penalties
The implications are profound. The report concludes 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.” This creates a perverse incentive structure. For disinformation actors, the potential financial payoff from viral, sensationalist false content—fueled by Meta’s own performance-based payment algorithms—can far outweigh the risk of a short, temporary suspension. The cycle becomes self-perpetuating: publish lies, attract engagement, earn money, face a brief penalty, and then return to profit once more. This undermines the very concept of accountability and demonstrates how platform architecture designed for engagement can actively finance the spread of societal harm.
Limitations and the Call for Regulatory Scrutiny
The researchers acknowledge limitations in their study. Meta does not provide public data on account monetization, forcing analysts to rely on a patchwork of disclosure databases and internal archives. It is also possible that Meta and its other global fact-checking partners have taken action against accounts in other markets not covered by this Bosnian-focused study. Nevertheless, the evidence presented is compelling enough to demand greater oversight. The report explicitly encourages the European Union to investigate whether Meta is complying with its stringent Digital Services Act (DSA) and its commitments under the voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation, which includes a pledge to “demonetise disinformation.” This places the ball firmly in the court of regulators to move from assessing promises to auditing outcomes.
The Human Impact Beyond the Algorithm
Beyond the policy failures, this dynamic has a deeply human cost, particularly in a fragile socio-political context like Bosnia and Herzegovina. The monetization of disinformation isn’t a victimless, technical flaw; it financially empowers networks that sow discord, amplify ethnic tensions, and distort democratic discourse. When hateful or dangerous conspiracies become a reliable revenue stream, the platforms hosting them become complicit in the real-world consequences. Every euro earned from a fabricated story exacerbates polarization and undermines shared reality for profit. This study moves the conversation beyond content moderation to the deeper issue of economic moderation, asking if platforms are willing to truly cut off the funding that makes lies a viable business model.
Conclusion: A Test of Corporate and Regulatory Will
The central question posed by this research is whether Meta possesses both the technical capability and the corporate will to consistently enforce its own policies against financially motivated bad actors. The findings suggest a system where enforcement is inconsistent, reversible, and ultimately insufficient to deter profitable disinformation campaigns. As regulatory pressure mounts, particularly in the EU, the era of self-policing is giving way to mandated accountability. The challenge for lawmakers is to transform broad commitments like “demonetization” into verifiable, auditable standards with real penalties for non-compliance. For the public, this report is a stark reminder that the battle against online falsehoods is not just about deleting posts, but about dismantling the financial engines that build and sustain them.
