How Social Media Monetized Conspiracy, and Why It Must Be Stopped

Most people do not understand how social media really works. They might think the loudest voices online are simply the most passionate or most informed. In reality, visibility is driven by something far more corrosive.

Social media monetizes attention, and attention is captured most reliably through outrage, fear, and suspicion.

This is not a side effect of the system. It is the system.

Algorithms are designed to keep users emotionally engaged because engagement translates directly into profit. Calm explanations do not spread. Nuance does not get clicks. What gets attention is provocation. What spreads is conspiracy. What pays is outrage.

This is how unsourced or false information turns into millions of dollars.

When tragedy strikes, facts take time. Investigations move carefully. But social media does not wait. Speculation is instant, and speculation generates outrage and views. Before truth can catch up, narratives harden, accusations circulate, and audiences are activated.

We saw this play out publicly after the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. While authorities worked through the facts, a parallel economy of speculation exploded online. Unverified claims were promoted. Insinuations were framed as courage. Suspicion was sold as truth.

Most disturbingly, people closest to the tragedy were dragged into the storm.

Candace Owens used her platform to promote speculative and unsourced theories surrounding Kirk’s death, theories that cast suspicion on individuals without evidence. Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, publicly rejected these claims and pleaded for the conspiracies to stop. That moment laid bare the human cost of this system.

This was not investigative journalism. It relied not on sourcing or verification, but on suggestion, implication, and the familiar phrase “just asking questions.”

And it worked.

The videos generated views. The views generated revenue. The revenue incentivized more escalation. Restraint was punished. Recklessness was rewarded.

This is how social media monetizes harm.

The platform encourages content that provokes outrage, spreads fear, and poses a danger to others. Any negative consequences are irrelevant to the algorithm.

Social media has turned distortion into a business model. Families are harassed. Reputations are damaged. Entire communities are reduced to villains and symbols. Those pushing unsourced narratives profit. Those targeted absorb the cost.

This is not confined to Jews, although Jews know the pattern intimately. Antisemitism has always relied on conspiracy theories and dehumanization. Social media did not invent these lies, but it has industrialized them. What once spread slowly now spreads instantly, globally, and for profit.

But once a society accepts unsourced accusation as entertainment, no group remains safe. Dehumanization is endlessly reusable. Today it is one family. Tomorrow it is another.

Dehumanization lowers the psychological barrier to hostility. For individuals already unstable or isolated, these narratives can become justification.

This is why online hate cannot be dismissed as “just words.”

Social media companies insist they are neutral platforms. They are not. Their algorithms actively shape what people see and believe. They decide which content is amplified and which disappears. They intervene constantly, but always in the direction of profit.

Which brings us to the core problem. Nothing will change until the money stops.

People ask why certain influencers keep escalating their rhetoric. Why they repeat unsourced claims. Why they lean into conspiracy even when it harms real people. The answer is simple: it pays.

Telling people to “be responsible” does nothing when irresponsibility is being actively subsidized. You cannot lecture people out of conduct that is financially rewarded.

As long as platforms continue to monetize conspiracy, outrage, and dehumanization, those behaviors will dominate.

That must change.

Algorithms should not deepen distortion. They should correct it. If someone searches conspiracy theories, the system should surface verified reporting and factual rebuttals, not escalate paranoia. If someone engages with antisemitic tropes, the algorithm should counter them with history, data, and context.

And monetization must follow responsibility. People can say what they want. They do not have a right to be enriched for spreading hate, lies, and dangerous content.

This is not censorship. It is common sense.

Technology reflects values. Right now, social media reflects the value of profit over truth. If we want a different culture, we need different incentives.

The system was built this way. It can be rebuilt.

But only if we are willing to stop paying for the damage it causes.

Linda Sadacka is a noted political activist and community leader, serving as the CEO of the New York Jewish Council and founder of the charity Moms on a Mitzvah. Follow her on Instagram.