Tech giant Meta is directly funding prominent Australian far-right figures, white nationalists, and conspiracy theorists through its invite-only content monetization program. An in-depth investigation into controversial local Facebook pages reveals that several accounts actively promoting extremist ideologies and medical misinformation are receiving direct payouts from the social media powerhouse.

Direct Payouts to Extremist Figures

Among those profiting from Meta’s lucrative program is Hugo Lennon, a far-right agitator who was recently intercepted by Victoria Police in Melbourne after shouting racist abuse at Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Lennon, who has been photographed with known neo-Nazis and regularly promotes white supremacist concepts like "replacement theory" online, has been receiving steady revenue through Facebook’s "Content Monetization" program since September 2025.

Lennon is not an isolated case. The Noticer, a far-right Australian website known for distributing neo-Nazi and white supremacist propaganda, has also been generating income through the same Meta program. While its monetization briefly paused early this year, the outlet continues to find a financial haven on Facebook, even as rival platform X (formerly Twitter) suspended its account for violating hateful profile policies.

Similarly, a page dedicated to the anti-immigration group "March for Australia," which maintains close ties to local neo-Nazi networks, joined Meta’s monetization system late last year.

Profiting Off Misinformation

The monetization pipeline also extends to prominent anti-vaccine activists. Monica Smit, the founder of Reignite Democracy Australia—a group that gained notoriety during pandemic-era lockdowns—has been part of the exclusive revenue-sharing program since September 2025. Data indicates Smit has benefited from Facebook advertising revenue dating as far back as 2017.

Today, her page continues to push thoroughly debunked vaccine misinformation while simultaneously using her platform to market "radiation protection" bracelets sold through her personal business website.

The Multi-Billion Dollar Partner Network

In 2025 alone, Meta distributed nearly $3 billion USD ($4.27 billion AUD) to an estimated 16.2 million monetized accounts worldwide. Under Facebook's current structure, the monetization scheme is an "invitation-only" program designed to reward users for high-performing public reels, photos, stories, and text posts.

Victoire Rio, executive director of the tech accountability non-profit What To Fix, which archives Meta's publisher disclosures, warns that these payouts create a dangerous precedent. "If we consider that Meta is in a direct commercial relationship with its publishers, insofar that they're paying them royalties... then you could argue that they are liable for the content that gets produced by their business partner," Rio said.

Rio noted that Meta frequently fails to police its own monetization systems, letting flagged accounts slip through the cracks. "It's quite common that we see accounts that are very clearly in violation of their policies getting through. The question here really is the quality of the enforcement of those policies."

The Business Model of 'Rage Bait'

Independent right-wing extremism researcher Dr. Kaz Ross argues that paying controversial creators is a feature of Meta’s core business model, not a bug. "Their financial model is to reward content creators who get engagement, and as we know, the best way of getting engagement is to produce rage bait, extremist material, aggravating material," Dr. Ross said. "Anything that will get people upset and arguing is the best way to get engagement."

Meta's own public monetization policies explicitly state that "debated social issues" such as race may face restricted monetization, and that "misleading medical information" is entirely ineligible for profit. However, enforcement appears highly inconsistent.

When questioned about these accounts, Meta did not address specific pages but issued a general defense of its platform policies. The tech giant emphasized the distinction between offensive speech and content that could lead to offline physical harm. "Such speech may be offensive to many, but it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness," the company stated, adding that creators who repeatedly breach community standards face temporary or permanent bans from monetization.

For researchers like Dr. Ross, the corporate defense falls short when real money is changing hands. "It's morally bankrupt... to know that these people are producing content that's in breach of your own regulations, yet you're actually not just allowing them, but you're encouraging them by paying them."