Meta’s Content Monetisation programme paid nearly US$3 billion to an estimated 16.2 million accounts in 2025. A Guardian investigation published in June 2026 found Indonesian content creators using the programme to post polarising political material in Australian and US Facebook groups, including fourteen large support groups for Pauline Hanson‘s One Nation party, seven of which Meta subsequently suspended for policy violations. The investigation’s core claims rest on reporting by the Guardian and an account from an Indonesian creator; they have not been independently verified by this outlet.
The investigation documented an Indonesian creator, referred to by the pseudonym Adira, who described posting provocative content across borders to maximise engagement payouts. The practice points to a structural gap between Meta’s payment incentives and its platform-integrity enforcement.
Some of the accounts Meta paid through its creator programme in 2025 were run from West Java. They posted about Pauline Hanson and Donald Trump in Facebook groups their operators had no stake in.
The content was not advocacy—it was stock.
The Guardian’s reporting, published in June 2026, documented creators in Indonesia who treat foreign party groups as a resource—places where engagement is high, oversight is uneven, and the payout per reaction adds up. One creator, given the pseudonym Adira, described posting material critical of Islam into Australian One Nation groups and pro-Trump content into US groups, sometimes mixing up the audiences by mistake.
The error did not matter—the engagement did.
Meta confirmed that seven of the fourteen One Nation support groups found by the Guardian’s reporting had been suspended for violating its policies. But the payment system that rewards the most reactive content remains intact. The company’s invitation-only programme pays for eligible reels, photos, stories, and text posts. It does not require that the creator have any tie to the audience they are targeting.
A payment system built for scale, not scrutiny
The US$3 billion figure comes from Meta’s own 2025 transparency report. It covers roughly 16.2 million monetized accounts. It is a large number—and an open offer.
For creators in the country—where 143 million people use social media and smartphone links top the total population—the sums are simple. Multiple accounts, high-engagement topics, and a payout per click create a low-barrier income stream.
Victoire Rio, who runs the advocacy group What To Fix, describes the arrangement in commercial terms, saying Meta has a direct financial tie to the creators it funds through its monetization programme. Kaz Ross, a researcher on the far right, argues that Meta’s engagement-driven model rewards rage-bait and extreme material because it produces strong user interaction.
Ross Tapsell at ANU has described Indonesia’s buzzer economy as a tool for persuasion, distraction, and paid push. Timothy Graham at QUT has argued that engagement-based reward systems create reasons to post divisive content. According to the Guardian’s June 2026 investigation, the Team Pauline Hanson group, created in April 2026, had almost 26,000 members and was publishing content critical of Islam and supportive of Hanson’s political stances.
Meta said seven of fourteen identified One Nation support groups had been suspended. The company’s payment rules state that creators can lose access to ad revenue if they breach Community Standards or payment policies. But the reporting suggests enforcement is reactive—groups are removed after they have already produced engagement and, likely, payouts. The Guardian’s findings have not been separately verified by this outlet, and Meta has not disclosed the full scale of overseas accounts in its payment programme.
The market that Meta built
Indonesia’s online audience is large enough to sustain this system. The country had 185.3 million internet users at the start of 2026, according to DataReportal.
Indonesia’s large informal and underemployed workforce helps explain why small engagement payouts can attract attention. The buzzer economy sits inside a settled system of paid party push, where multiple accounts boost the same message while keeping the money motive hidden.
Western users’ public engagement data is the raw material here. Reactions, comments, shares, and group involvement can be turned into payout-producing attention on Meta’s platforms. The exposure is not that private data is stolen, but that public party debate becomes monetized engagement fuel, while Meta’s own policy framework allows invited creators to earn from eligible public content unless it violates payment rules.
Meta controls the payment system. Its rules decide what content can be rewarded. The non-obvious result is that a platform policy choice can reshape the apparent size and truth of grassroots support without any formal campaign ever being filed. The question now is whether Meta’s next enforcement report—expected in its upcoming update—will show systematic policing or reactive cleanup. If it does not, the scrutiny will shift from the creators to the system itself.
Beyond the headline
The money trail
The economic logic matters more than the personalities attached to it: a payout system built to reward engagement creates a market for controversy, and that market can be supplied cheaply from anywhere with a phone and a second account. The result is that political attention itself becomes the product, while the country of origin becomes almost incidental to the revenue stream.
The bigger picture
This is not only about foreign trolling; it is about the platform logic of political persuasion, where payment turns boost into labour. Once engagement has a cash value, partisan outrage no longer needs to be centrally directed to be effective, because thousands of small actors can optimize for the same payout signal.
The reach
Meta’s payment rules decide what content can be rewarded. For Australia’s public debate, the result is that a platform policy choice can reshape the apparent size and truth of grassroots support without any formal campaign ever being filed. The reach of this effect extends beyond any single election cycle.
The decisions that follow
With Meta’s next transparency update expected in the coming weeks and Australian and US election integrity bodies watching closely, four groups face specific choices.
- Australian political campaign manager
You need to audit the Facebook groups that appear to support your candidate or your opponent. Look for admin locations, posting patterns, and content that reads as generic rather than local. The Australian Electoral Commission’s guidance on online political communication offers a starting point for understanding disclosure rules around foreign-sourced influence. Assume that some of the engagement you see is manufactured until you can verify otherwise.
- Meta platform integrity executive
Your payment programme has created a direct commercial tie to creators who are now documented targeting foreign political groups. The question is whether your enforcement is systematic or reactive. Review the invitation-only criteria for the Content Monetisation programme and consider whether geography or audience connection should factor into eligibility. The next transparency report is a deadline, not a formality.
- US-based investor with Meta stock holdings
The risk is regulatory: if US or Australian authorities treat this as an election integrity problem rather than a platform moderation dispute, the cost could extend beyond fines to mandated changes in how the payment programme operates. Watch for any public response from election bodies in the coming weeks. The absence of a response is also a signal—it suggests the issue is not yet being treated as urgent.
- Indonesian digital economy policy maker
The buzzer economy draws in people who need income and have a phone. That makes it a labour issue as much as a platform integrity one. Look at the overlap between the informal workforce and the creator economy, and consider whether existing labour protections apply to people earning through foreign platform payments. The question is not whether the work exists, but whether the people doing it have any safety net.
Explainer
- Content Monetisation programme
- Meta’s invitation-only system that pays creators for eligible public reels, photos, stories, and text posts based on engagement. Launched as an expansion of earlier creator funding tools, it paid nearly US$3 billion to an estimated 16.2 million accounts in 2025. Creators can lose access if they breach Community Standards or monetization policies, though enforcement is often reactive rather than preventive.
- One Nation
- A right-wing Australian political party founded in 1997 by Pauline Hanson, who has served as a senator for Queensland since 2016. The party’s platform centres on restricting immigration, opposing multiculturalism, and criticising Islam. It has a significant presence on Facebook, where support groups have become targets for overseas content creators seeking engagement payouts.
- Buzzer economy
- Indonesia’s loosely coordinated ecosystem of social media accounts that amplify specific messages—typically political—while hiding their financial motives. The term comes from the Indonesian word “buzzer,” referring to people paid to post. The ecosystem ranges from high-profile influencers to economically vulnerable individuals earning modest sums through platform engagement rewards.
- Pauline Hanson
- Australian senator and leader of the One Nation party, known for her opposition to immigration and multiculturalism. First elected to federal parliament in 1996, she returned to the Senate in 2016 representing Queensland. Her political movement has a strong Facebook presence, making it a target for monetized content from overseas creators.
- Inauthentic behaviour
- Coordinated activity on social media platforms designed to mislead people about the origin or popularity of content. Meta’s policies prohibit fake accounts, coordinated harm, and foreign interference. The company removes networks engaged in such behaviour, but monetization incentives can encourage it at scale before detection occurs.
RELATED STORIES
