As the 2016 US Presidential election approached, ‘fake news’ surged across the internet, with hundreds of pro-Trump websites shared by millions of people. At least 100 of these sites have been traced to Veles, a town of 41,000 in the Balkan nation of North Macedonia. The citizens of Veles are not particularly invested in American conservatism—political fake news simply functioned as a vector for advertisement, offering them an unparalleled financial incentive. This article argues that the financial incentive created by such advertising potential is an important and underappreciated motivation for the creation and dissemination of political disinformation.
On websites with domain names such as USADailyPolitics.com, WorldPoliticus.com, and USAConservativeToday.com and beneath headlines such as “Your Prayers Have Been Answered!” were articles proclaiming that Hilary Clinton was being indicted or that Pope Francis had endorsed Trump. All of these stories were false. Yet, shared across Facebook, they were seen by thousands, sometimes millions of people. Indeed, if you encountered fake news on a website such as DonaldTrumpNews.co in the lead-up to the 2016 election, chances are it came from North Macedonia.
The boundaries between, and the definitions of, disinformation and fake news are imprecise. For this article, however, disinformation is understood to be inaccurate information that is intentionally disseminated. Fake news, on the other hand, is a format of disinformation wherein the false information is designed to imitate ‘real’ news, for instance by writing headlines or (falsely) attributing information to various sources. Scholarship on fake news has for the most part overlooked financial motivations, assuming partisanship to be the near-exclusive motivation for creating and disseminating political fake news. For instance, Osmundsen et al argue that animosity toward political opponents increases the likelihood of sharing political fake news, particularly that which defames political opponents. Importantly the study also notes that the audiences of fake news increasingly not only participate in its dissemination but are active producers of fake news, indicating that partisan motivation extends to both the production and dissemination of fake news. Similarly, Lecheler et al., argue that “fake news is often created to destabilise society.” They suggest that fake news is produced by populist leaders or (foreign) state actors as a form of propaganda with goals that include disrupting foreign relations, swinging election results, or delegitimizing the media or opposition. However, I believe this focus on partisan motivations obscures another, simpler, explanation: financial gain.
In Veles, the production of fake news developed into an industry, employing dozens of people whose only incentive was financial. In other words, producing fake news was a way to make money, not an attempt to put Donald Trump in power or destabilize the United States. Hughes and Waismen-Manor conducted fieldwork in Veles and determined that a majority of the fake news websites produced there were operated by teenagers and young men. These men made websites that, through Google’s AdSense program, they plastered with advertisements. Copying false information from American conservative platforms, they wrote up new sensational headlines, and reposted the fake news on their website, sharing them all over Facebook. The sensationalism brought clicks and—thanks to the ads—the clicks generated revenue. On a good day, a single post could make $15. The more the fake news spread, the more money was made.
Fake news was a digital gold rush, and pro-Trump stories were the jackpot. For instance, one fake news publisher, going by the pseudonym Boris described how he briefly attempted producing left-wing fake news supporting Bernie Sanders but it never gained nearly as much traction—or money—as conservative fake news. Like most other fake news employees of Veles, Boris didn’t support what he posted, he didn’t even believe it. The economy in Veles is weak however, the average monthly salary is $371, and the fake news industry could bring in an extra $1,000 a month, more if you were particularly good. Boris claims to have earned $16,000 between August and November 2016.
US elections only occur every four years, but financial need lasts. After Donald Trump’s 2016 win, Americans’ demand for hyperpartisan news declined, and Veles began churning out websites on cars, American celebrities, and healthy living (non-medically supported of course). After all, “US politics [was] just [that] year’s opportunity, thanks to a combination of Trump and Facebook.”
However, contrary to the common narrative wherein Veles’ fake news industry was led by apolitical teens, in 2018 new reports emerged suggesting deeper American links. A joint report by Buzzfeed News and partners found that American fake news writer Ben Goldman and Nevada state assembly candidate Paris Wade had written dozens of fake news articles for USAPoliticsToday.com—a fake news site run by prominent Macedonian lawyer, Trajche Arsov. Yet, while Arsov is admittedly a “self-described libertarian who counts Republican senator…Ted Cruz among his political idols” he too had entered the fake news industry with financial, not political, incentives in mind. Arsov claims that he initially tried to break into the fake news market with car sites and liberal-leaning political content. Like Boris however, he found that conservative media “was just better business.” Whatever political alliance Arsov built with Goldman and Wade, he began with a singular goal in mind: profit.
Could it be that Veles’ fake news industry is a mere anomaly? Is the financial motivation in this case study an aberration among the rising tide of fake news fabricated with hyperpartisan and propagandizing intentions? While it is beyond the scope of this article to analyze the intentions behind other fake news case studies, there is reason to believe that Veles does not harbor the only fake news industry. A report by the Center for Media, Data, and Society found that disinformation is a profitable business in six Eastern European nations. While some disinformation sites seem to serve an ideological goal, most are “created only as a vehicle to display ads.” Indeed, in Hungary and Romania, some disinformation websites are so heavily filled with advertisements that it is difficult to access the actual content. Similarly, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue has identified multiple conservative fake news websites and Facebook pages run out of Vietnam, including USMilitaryNews.com. As in Veles, the domains are brimming with click-bait headlines and advertisements.
To fight disinformation and fake news, the scholarly gap on fake news for profit must be addressed. Designed to generate clicks and be shared far and wide, the capacity for financially motivated fake news to proliferate propaganda and polarization is overwhelming. As so, as we search for mechanisms for counteracting fake news, the underlying financial motivations must be taken into account. Only once we address fake news as a tool for advertisement and income do we have a chance of defeating disinformation.
Hi Talia,
I just finished reading your article, and I found it both eye-opening and concerning. Your point about how making money from fake news is speeding up the decline of our democracy really hit home. It’s scary to think that profit motives are turning disinformation into a thriving business, putting our public conversations at serious risk.
What stood out to me was your deep dive into the economic side of fake news. Breaking down how clickbait and sensational headlines rake in revenue really helped me understand why misleading info spreads so easily online. The examples you gave about ad revenue and affiliate marketing keeping disinformation alive were spot on and made your argument even stronger.
I also appreciated your take on social media platforms acting as amplifiers for fake news. Highlighting how algorithms push content that’s more engaging, even if it’s false, really shows the bigger picture of the challenges we face in fighting disinformation. Plus, your discussion on why people fall for fake news—like confirmation bias and echo chambers—gave a well-rounded view of the issue.
That said, I was left thinking about what we can actually do to tackle this disinformation goldrush. You did a great job outlining the problem, but I’d love to hear more about possible solutions. Maybe stricter advertising rules or better fact-checking tech could help reduce the financial incentives behind fake news? And what about education—how can we boost media literacy so people can better spot fake information?
All in all, your article is a powerful and thorough look at how turning fake news into a profit is damaging our democracy. This was really thought-provoking for me so great work!