A few weeks after Elon Musk’s attempt to silence him was thwarted in court, the anti-hate research organization Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is back with a new investigation into Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter) back. The study builds on previous work examining its influence on online speech by illuminating how Musk’s policy changes actively reward hate speech posters with increased reach, engagement, and even direct payouts through X’s subscriber feature.
The latest CCDH research is a case study examining the growth rates of ten influential accounts paying for X Premium that have posted anti-Jewish and/or anti-Muslim hate speech since the Israel-Gaza conflict sparked by the Hamas attack have about Israel on October 7, 2023. Some of the accounts switched to war hate posts after previously posting content about conspiracy theories related to COVID-19, the report said.
The ten accounts tracked for the study, titled “Hate Pays: How X-Accounts Are Exploiting the Israel-Gaza Conflict to Grow and Profit,” are: Jackson Hinkle; Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis; Censored Men; Jake Shields; Dr. Eli David; Radio Genoa; Ryan Dawson; Keith Woods; way of the world; and Sam Parker.
The CCDH found that these accounts were able to increase their reach to X after posting hateful content targeting the war. The report discusses examples of hate speech posted by the accounts, such as tweets that depict anti-Semitic phrases such as the blood libel or that seek to dehumanize Palestinians by depicting them as rats.
“Each of the accounts experienced slow follower growth in the four months prior to October 7th, representing a total growth of approximately 1 million followers. However, they gained a total of four million new followers in the four months after the outbreak of the conflict,” the CCDH wrote, saying that together this represented almost four-fold growth compared to the four months before the war.
The growth rates of individual accounts gaining new followers over the period varied, with the highest growth multiple recorded being 9.6 (for Dawson’s account), followed by 8.3 (for Hinkle) and 7.1 (for Parker). At the low end, Way of the World saw a 1.7x increase in followers over the period.
The report provides a detailed look at the prominence of the accounts being tracked, noting, for example, that Hinkle is banned from WhatsApp, YouTube and PayPal. Or that the account “Censored Men (anonymous)” used to generally defend toxic masculinity influencer Andrew Tate, but since October 7 has focused on the Israel-Gaza conflict. While Dawson, a Holocaust denier who also believes the 9/11 terrorist attacks were carried out by Israel, had previously been suspended by X, but his account was reinstated under Musk in 2023.
Since taking over Twitter when Combined with policy changes Musk has pushed in areas like content moderation, account verification and premium features (e.g. prioritized ranking for posts from paid accounts), it creates a polarizing voice platform where it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate real information from lies The tone of the posts all too often tends towards outrageous conversation (or worse).
The CCDH claims this is intentional; a deliberate strategy by Musk to profit from the tragedy. It accuses him of accepting hateful accounts and configuring X to enable and encourage purveyors of hate speech to turn war and human suffering into an opportunity to raise their profile on the service and generate revenue from posts that Exploiting violence and misery.
Six of the ten accounts examined have X’s subscription feature enabled, meaning their followers can pay them for access to additional content. The report also captures a contribution from Hinkle shared a screenshot in early October that appeared to show him making $550 in ad revenue over the course of a month — directly benefiting from engagement generated by hateful posts.
In another finding, the CCDH said its analysis of the accounts showed that even critical sharing – such as quote tweets denouncing hateful content – increased their visibility and reach (potentially increasing revenue generation opportunities). According to the report, such critical reshares contributed up to 28% to the reach of hateful posts, suggesting that the number is a conservative estimate as it does not take into account X’s own algorithmic response to these reshares, which further amplify Attraction applies even more commitment to advertising profit.
Advertising-funded business models that generate revenue based on user engagement are ultimately driving this anti-social outrage mechanism. In X’s case, Musk’s erratic behavior has angered some advertisers. But not all: The CCDH found that all of the accounts tracked were posting ads alongside hateful posts. “We found ads for Oreos, the NBA, the FBI and even X himself placed near hateful posts,” it said.
“Under Elon Musk’s leadership, X appears to have a strategy of hosting as much controversial content as possible,” a CCDH spokesperson told TechCrunch, responding to questions about the research. “We know that this controversial content is addictive, not only for users who approve of it, but also for users who criticize it. The potential benefit for
“The accounts examined in our report grew significantly despite posting false or hateful content, showing that posting such content is not a barrier to growth on X. This is not unique to the Israel-Gaza conflict, but is the latest example of the problem.” Our previous investigation into accounts reinstated after Musk’s takeover of Twitter shows that
Imran Ahmed, CEO and founder of the CCDH, commented on the report in a statement, adding: “The public and advertisers need to learn more about the symbiotic, profitable relationship between X and hateful ‘influencers.'” Lawmakers must act for greater transparency and enforce platform accountability and enable these companies to be held responsible for violating the civil rights and safety of Jews, Muslims and other minority communities.”
Musk has previously claimed that hate speech has declined under his watch, but previous CCDH investigations refuted his claim.
X is also currently under investigation in the European Union for a number of alleged violations of the bloc’s online governance and content moderation regime, including its response to illegal content – which can include hate speech. Penalties for confirmed breaches of the EU Digital Services Act can be up to 6% of annual global turnover.