How X users can earn thousands from US election misinformation and AI images

On the social media platform X, some users are discovering that sharing election misinformation, AI-generated images, and unfounded conspiracy theories can be quite lucrative. Reports indicate that these users are making “thousands of dollars” by engaging in a networked strategy of resharing provocative content, often devoid of factual basis.

The BBC has uncovered various networks of accounts that repeatedly share each other’s posts throughout the day. These posts encompass a mix of true, false, and misleading information, aimed at maximizing engagement and, subsequently, revenue. Some users report earning anywhere from a few hundred to thousands of dollars, citing coordinated efforts to amplify their content through forums and group chats. “It’s a way of trying to help each other out,” one user explained.

These networks include accounts supporting figures like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, along with independent voices. Notably, some profiles, which claim no formal ties to official campaigns, have attracted the attention of U.S. politicians seeking supportive posts.

On October 9, X altered its payment structure for eligible accounts. Earnings are now based on engagement metrics—likes, shares, and comments from premium users—rather than the number of ads displayed under posts. While other social media platforms impose strict rules against monetizing misinformation, X lacks comprehensive guidelines in this area, raising concerns about the implications for political discourse, especially during a pivotal election cycle.

The BBC’s investigation compared the reported earnings of several X users with their follower counts and engagement metrics, finding the claims credible. Some accounts shared misleading posts, including debunked claims of election fraud and severe allegations against prominent political candidates. Alarmingly, these misleading narratives have spilled over to other platforms like Facebook and TikTok, gaining wider audiences.

One user with a modest following claimed to have created a doctored image portraying Kamala Harris as a McDonald’s employee, which was then used to falsely allege that the Democratic Party was manipulating images of their candidate. Additionally, conspiracy theories about a July assassination attempt on Donald Trump originated on X and were disseminated on larger social media platforms.

Despite these troubling trends, X has not addressed whether its monetization policies encourage such content, nor has it responded to requests for interviews with owner Elon Musk.

Inside the Content Creation World

Freedom Uncut, a content creator who spends up to 16 hours a day on X, describes his workspace adorned with fairy lights shaped like the American flag. He identifies as an independent and leans toward supporting Trump. While he claims his content is intended as “art” that sparks conversation, he acknowledges that sensationalist content garners the most views.

Since monetizing his profile, he reports earning in the “low thousands” monthly. He observes that some users are making over ten thousand dollars, and views provocative content as a “money-maker.” He believes that controversial posts attract more engagement, which he compares to sensationalist traditional media.

Conversely, users like Brown Eyed Susan, a pro-Kamala Harris account holder with over 200,000 followers, initially did not intend to monetize her posts. However, since receiving a blue verification tick, she estimates earnings of a few hundred dollars monthly. Her viral posts include conspiracy theories surrounding the attempted assassination of Trump, which have generated millions of views.

Susan shares her concerns about the truth, stating, “There’s no way to get to the truth in this.” Her posts often feature AI-generated images that critique Republican candidates, some of which portray Trump in exaggerated, unflattering ways.

A Controversial Digital Landscape

The dissemination of misleading content has serious implications for the upcoming elections. For instance, a doctored image of Harris working at McDonald’s went viral, sparking unfounded accusations against the Democratic Party. The creator of this image, who goes by Blake, emphasized that people often share content not for its truthfulness but because they want it to resonate with their beliefs.

X maintains that it prioritizes user expression and employs labels for manipulated media. However, its lack of stringent measures against misinformation remains a point of concern. The potential impact of such content on voter perceptions is significant, raising questions about the responsibilities of social media platforms during critical electoral periods.

As the election approaches, the strategies employed by these users reveal a troubling intersection of misinformation, profit, and political influence—one that may shape the future of political discourse in the U.S.