Hate speech is spreading across social media, but it is not just causing harm. It is also bringing in millions in advertising revenue for creators and platforms. And YouTube is among those benefiting handsomely.
“Hate speech can be profitable for creators and for YouTube through its share of ad revenue,” said the new report by the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). It estimates that 100 YouTube channels featuring hateful content could generate $13.3 million in advertising revenue in 2026. Why has the European Commission not yet start to investigate the platform’s monetisation practices under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA)?
GDI analysed 19,297 videos published between January and August 2026 across 100 English-language channels based in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and EU member states.
The researchers also manually reviewed 200 videos from the 20 most-viewed channels. They found that 14 of them targeted migrants, Muslims and Black communities. According to GDI, 63 per cent of the videos in the sample contained hate-related content, generating an estimated $8.6 million in advertising revenue alone. Anti-immigration narratives were the most lucrative, followed by Islamophobic and anti-LGBTQIA+ content.
You might be interested
YouTube disputed the findings of the GDI report. The company stated that it does not permit content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on their protected group status. “Hate speech is not allowed and we rigorously remove content that violates our hate speech policy, regardless of channel size,” a YouTube spokeperson told EU Perspectives.
Hate knows no borders
Although most of the channels analysed were based outside the EU, European audiences represent a significant potential source of revenue. GDI estimates that approximately 460 million people in EU member states use YouTube every month. However, the platform does not publish detailed information about where its viewers come from. This makes it difficult to determine precisely how much the platform earns from European audiences.
Researchers therefore modelled three scenarios, assuming that EU users account for five, ten or 15 per cent of the views generated by the channels under investigation. Under the middle scenario—with ten per cent of views originating in the EU—the estimated advertising revenue reaches $2.6 million.
As long as hate pays, it will keep attracting new people to produce it. — Global Disinformation Index
Approximately $900,000 of this amount would be associated with content classified by GDI as hate speech and potentially illegal under the laws of EU member states. The findings point to a regulatory challenge: content produced outside the EU can still reach European audiences, earn money and potentially fall within the scope of European legislation.
AI could make this problem even bigger. YouTube’s automated dubbing and transcription tools are making English-language content increasingly accessible to non-English-speakers. This could help harmful narrative reach audiences across language barriers.
One example in the report is a US-based political commentary channel. Its videos described migrants in dehumanasing terms, called for their forced removal and appeared to encourage violence against them. The channel generated an estimated $101,000 per month in advertising revenue, of which approximately $82,000 went to YouTube.
Does Europe’s rulebook reach far enough?
YouTube has its own regulation for channels to earn ad revenue. They must be in the YouTube Partner Program. “We also enforce our strict advertiser-friendly guidelines that determine what content is eligible to monetise,” the YouTube spokeperson explained. Advertisers can also use YouTube’s suitability controls to prevent their ads from appearing alongside specific videos, channels or keywords.
The report also highlights a gap between YouTube’s own definition of hate speech and the broader definition used by GDI. Another problem is the inconsistent enforcement of the platform’s existing rules.
Hate speech is not allowed and we rigorously remove content that violates our hate speech policy, regardless of channel size. — YouTube spokeperson
The DSA does not define illegal content itself. Whether content is illegal depends on EU law or the legislation of a member state, provided that national law complies with EU law. This means that content produced outside Europe is not beyond the reach of European rules. If it is illegal in a particular country, the platform may have to restrict access to it there, even if its creator is based elsewhere.
Germany provides an example. Two channels examined in the case studies were accessible to German audiences. Some of their statements could potentially fall under Section 130 of the Criminal Code, which criminalises incitement to hatred against national, racial, religious or ethnic groups, among other offences.
GDI argues that this gives the European Commission sufficient grounds to investigate whether YouTube is fulfilling its obligations. The report calls for “a systemic approach targeting the financial incentive” behind the hate speech.
Taking the profit out
The organisation is calling on the European Commission to examine how YouTube’s advertising model contributes to the spread of hate-related content and whether the platform is effectively removing monetisation from videos that violate its own rules.
In particular, GDI wants YouTube to provide evidence that it consistently applies penalties against repeat offenders, including suspending their access to advertising revenue or terminating their channels.
The report also calls for greater transparency towards advertisers, who currently have limited control over where their ads appear. GDI recommends that brands should be able to access information about advertising placements at both video and channel level.
Another concern is the effectiveness of content moderation across the EU’s different languages. YouTube’s independent audit under the DSA identified shortcomings, including gaps in the availability of platform terms in official EU languages and problems with the prioritising notices from trusted flaggers.
Google, YouTube’s parent company, has also acknowledged that its automated moderation systems may work less effectively in some languages. These weaknesses could be particularly problematic in a European market where YouTube has an average of 462 million signed-in accounts, according to GDI.
“As long as hate pays, it will keep attracting new people to produce it,” the organisation warned. The challenge for the EU is therefore not only to establish whether illegal content is being distributed online, but also to examine the economic structures that allow it to generate revenue.
