“X” to cut payouts for accounts relying on misleading content

Technology|13/4/2026
“X” to cut payouts for accounts relying on misleading content
X (stock image)
Listen to this story:
0:00

Note: AI technology was used to generate this article's audio.

  • The platform reduces earnings from repetitive and inauthentic content within its monetization program
  • The move also targets fast-paced news accounts and sparks debate over ad system performance

X has started reducing payouts for accounts relying on misleading, click-driven content (Clickbait), as well as heavily reposted news aggregation, in a move aimed at curbing what it described as “flooding the timeline” with inauthentic material.

Nikita Bier, X’s Vice President of Product, said that all accounts involved in aggregating and reposting news content saw a 60% reduction in payouts during the current payment cycle, with an additional 20% cut expected in the next cycle.

He added that the platform will also continue reducing payments for accounts that frequently use terms such as “BREAKING” or rely on constant sensational framing in every post to boost engagement.

Bier said the measure is intended to improve content quality on the platform, noting that “flooding the timeline with hundreds of repetitive or stolen posts daily limits the visibility of genuine creators and harms the growth of new accounts.”

He stressed that “X will not interfere with freedom of expression or access to content, but it will not fund manipulation of the system or users.”

The comments come after several news accounts reported receiving notices indicating that their monetization had been suspended or revoked on the platform.

They also come amid renewed debate over X’s performance and its ability to drive traffic to external websites, following criticism from analysts, including Nate Silver, who pointed to a decline in the platform’s effectiveness in converting engagement into real traffic.

In contrast, Bier rejected the accuracy of those assessments, while X owner Elon Musk called them “bullshit,” although other analyses have supported some of those conclusions.