Monetisation of Harmful and Manipulated Content in Germany and Europe

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The report identifies a 'business of harm' in Germany where content creators use a cross-platform chain—Telegram for traffic, X for audience growth and revenue sharing, and websites for stable income via programmatic ads and merchandise—to profit from adversarial narratives. It argues that the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) fails to address these financial flows, leaving a regulatory blind spot that allows brands to inadvertently fund harmful content.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Harmful content creators in the German infosphere can earn significant sums, with a single creator potentially making up to €15,000 per month.
  • Monetisation follows a cross-platform chain where different services serve distinct financial roles: Telegram funnels traffic, X builds audiences and generates creator revenue, and websites provide stable income through advertising, subscriptions, and donations.
  • Revenue for adversarial content is highly volatile and spikes during major geopolitical events; for example, X profiles saw earnings peaks around the launch of Operation Absolute Resolve (January 3), Iranian protester repression (January 9-14), and Operation Epic Fury (February 27-March 2) in 2026.
  • Programmatic advertising remains a primary revenue driver for websites, while merchandising is a significant secondary source, contributing an average of 38% of revenue for some sites (ranging from 13% to 67%).
  • The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) is viewed as a risk mitigation framework that lacks the tools to directly regulate or disrupt the financial flows sustaining harmful content, as it does not require platforms to demonetise accounts that violate terms of service.
  • German-language adversarial websites show a higher preference for bank transfers as a payment method compared to other Western countries, likely due to a national preference for cash-like payments; bank transfers were offered in 15 of 23 analysed cases.

Cite the original document

APA
Global Disinformation Index (n.d.). Monetisation of Harmful and Manipulated Content in Germany and Europe. https://www.disinformationindex.org/files/2026-Monetisation-of-Harmful-Content-in-the-German-Online-Ecosystem.pdf
Chicago
Global Disinformation Index. Monetisation of Harmful and Manipulated Content in Germany and Europe. n.d. https://www.disinformationindex.org/files/2026-Monetisation-of-Harmful-Content-in-the-German-Online-Ecosystem.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Global Disinformation Index |title=Monetisation of Harmful and Manipulated Content in Germany and Europe |url=https://www.disinformationindex.org/files/2026-Monetisation-of-Harmful-Content-in-the-German-Online-Ecosystem.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{globaldisinformationindexndmonetisation, author = {{Global Disinformation Index}}, title = {{Monetisation of Harmful and Manipulated Content in Germany and Europe}}, institution = {Global Disinformation Index}, url = {https://www.disinformationindex.org/files/2026-Monetisation-of-Harmful-Content-in-the-German-Online-Ecosystem.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated