Monetizing Misinformation: The Profitable World of X Users During US Elections

Some users of X are generating substantial earnings by sharing election-related misinformation and AI-generated images, illustrating the platform's role in shaping political narratives while questioning ethical guidelines.

Amid the heightened political landscape of the upcoming US elections, some users of social media platform X have discovered avenues to generate significant income by sharing content that includes election misinformation, AI-digital imagery, and baseless conspiracy theories. Reports indicate that these users claim to earn "thousands of dollars" by capitalizing on misleading information.

An investigation revealed networks of accounts that frequently cross-share each other's posts, which blend true, unfounded, fabricated, and manipulated material to amplify their reach and revenue streams on X. Several users within these circles boast earnings that range from hundreds to thousands of dollars each month. "It's a way of trying to help each other out," one participant explained, referring to the collaborative nature of their sharing practices.

Interestingly, these networks show mixed political affiliations, supporting figures like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, while others remain independent. Some users state that they have been approached by political candidates seeking supportive posts to boost their campaigns. Recent changes to X's monetization policies have made it such that payments to eligible users with substantial reach depend on engagement metrics from premium users, including likes and comments, rather than the number of advertisements featured in their posts, creating an incentivizing environment for attention-grabbing content.

Although many social media platforms enforce strict policies against posting misinformation—often resulting in account suspensions or demotion—X's approach appears less stringent in this regard, prompting concerns about whether the platform encourages provocative claims during a critical time for US politics.

Analysis of reported earnings indicates that financial gains claimed by some X users, based on their number of views and interactions, are plausible. For instance, followers are sharing misleading content about election fraud, contrarily debunked claims, and extreme accusations against presidential candidates.

One user, who identifies as "Freedom Uncut," demonstrates how AI-generated images can spark discussion, asserting that his provocative posts, often praising Trump or critiquing Democrats, have led to earnings in the "low thousands" monthly. He believes that sensational content captures the most attention. Freedom Uncut acknowledges the controversial nature of these posts, suggesting that even those who spread falsehoods are simply leveraging a "money-maker."

In contrast, another prominent user, known as "Brown Eyed Susan," actively promotes Democratic discussions and estimates modest earnings attributed to her posts. She engages in real-time sharing, making hundreds of posts daily, including misinformation that falsely suggests events surrounding Trump were staged.

Interestingly, amid the rivalry between these contrasting factions on X, some users exhibit a cavalier attitude toward the truth, noting that their motivations and dissemination of misleading content are often tied to personal beliefs rather than adherence to factual integrity. The content shared on X does not just foster political discourse; it raises questions about the real implications on electoral outcomes and the growing trust in independent media over traditional platforms.

As these dynamics evolve, X has been less responsive to inquiries about their role in this phenomenon, despite the significant implications misinformation could have in shaping voter sentiment. The platform's loose regulations could pose challenges for voters, as more users capitalize on engaging, yet potentially misleading content during one of the most crucial election cycles in the United States.