As the US election approaches, users on X are reportedly cashing in by spreading misinformation and AI-generated imagery, stirring controversy over the platform's impact on political dialogue. Content creators from both sides of the political spectrum share, amplify, and monetize misleading narratives, drawing the attention of candidates and challenging social media regulations.
Profit and Misinformation: The Dark Economics of Political Discourse on X
Profit and Misinformation: The Dark Economics of Political Discourse on X
An investigation reveals how users on X leverage election misinformation and AI-generated content to earn substantial income, raising ethical concerns ahead of the US elections.
In an alarming revelation, some users on X claim to earn "thousands of dollars" by propagating content that includes election misinformation, American AI-generated images, and unverified conspiracy theories. An investigation by the BBC has uncovered a vast network of accounts that repeatedly circulate each other's posts multiple times a day, combining accurate, misleading, and outright false material to maximize their visibility and, consequently, their earnings.
Many users reported varying income levels, ranging from a few hundred to thousands of dollars monthly, thanks to shared post coordination via forums and group chats. "It's a way of trying to help each other out," one user noted. Accounts exist for both supporters of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, with various profiles expressing their independence from official campaign links while receiving inquiries from U.S. politicians looking for supportive content.
Changes to X’s payment structure on October 9 shifted the calculation of earnings from views and engagement by premium users—likes, shares, and comments—away from conventional advertisement revenue. Unlike many social media platforms, which might impose penalties for misinformation, X has fewer restrictions, allowing questionable content to thrive.
Despite its smaller user base, X's influence on political conversations is notable, prompting questions regarding the potential encouragement of users to share provocative claims irrespective of their veracity. Comparisons of self-reported earnings among users indicate their claims are credible and possible given their reach on the platform.
Within these networks, numerous erroneous claims have circulated, including accusations of election fraud that have been debunked, along with outrageous allegations against political candidates. Misinformation from X is not contained; it has permeated larger platforms, such as Facebook and TikTok, as its users amplify false narratives across digital ecosystems.
Profiles like "Freedom Uncut" claim to spend up to 16 hours daily curating and posting content on X. Though he implies his satire is aimed at sparking dialogue rather than deception, he acknowledges that the controversial nature of posts draws significant engagement. Similarly, another user, known as "Brown Eyed Susan," contradicts the intent of misinformation but admits her virulent claims about conspiracy theories have gained traction on social media—this includes even discussing unfounded assassination attempts.
The shifting dynamics on X present a complex interplay of ethics and profit, as users knowingly or unknowingly contribute to the dissemination of misleading claims. With politicians reaching out for digital support and alliances formed in shared misinformation, platforms like X become battlegrounds for narratives that could shape electoral outcomes.
The landscape of social media political discourse is tumultuous, with users proclaiming that misinformation aligns all sides of the political divide, and deception becomes increasingly profitable. As the election nears, the implications of these activities become more tangible, raising urgent questions about the integrity of information and its role in shaping public perception and political reality.
