We work 8 to 12 hours a day for $0.22 an hour. Meta suppresses our reach. The audience demands “Source?” and calls us grifters. This is what independent political media on Threads actually looks like.
I need to say something, and I’m going to say it plainly, because I’m tired of people misunderstanding what exactly it is I (we) do, primarily on Threads.
There is an entire ecosystem of independent political content creators on Threads doing real, substantive, journalism-quality work. They’re breaking news off the wire before legacy media touches it. They’re writing deep-dive analysis. They’re fact-checking claims in real time. They’re doing this 8 to 12 hours a day, 5 to 6 days a week, paying out of pocket for the tools to do it, on a platform that actively suppresses their content, for an audience that treats them like employees and calls them grifters when they ask for a cup of coffee.
I know all of this because I’m one of them. And this piece isn’t asking for sympathy. It’s asking for understanding. Because something is breaking, and if people don’t see it for what it is, they’re going to lose the very thing they claim to want: independent media that actually tells the truth.
There’s No Name for What We Are
We’re not “influencers” in the lifestyle-brand sense. We’re not credentialed journalists employed by newsrooms. We’re not podcasters or YouTubers operating inside monetized ecosystems (although some do that too). We exist in a space that doesn’t have an industry term because the industry never imagined people would do this work for free.
I call us “internet pundits”. We’re the D-Lister Threads equivalent of the pay-per-appearance folks you see on the cable news shows. Most don’t call ourselves anything at all. We’re not a formal collective, not an organization, not a brand. We’re just people who independently decided this work matters and showed up every day to do it. Some of us became friends along the way. Most of us share a progressive lean. All of us share an insane work ethic and a refusal to wait for legacy media to get around to telling people the truth about what’s happening.
The fact that there’s no name for what we are is itself part of the story. Nobody built a category for people who pay for wire service access out of pocket, spend hours fact-checking a story, publish it on Threads for free, get called a liar by strangers, get called a grifter for asking for coffee money, and then wake up and do it all again the next day.
What we are NOT: we are not “just sharing links to news articles.” We source from wire services, RSS aggregators, and paid tools, often synthesizing multiple sources into one original analysis to be posted to Threads. We are not reposting content that’s been public for hours. We are frequently first to publish, beating legacy outlets to stories by hours and sometimes days. We are not hobbyists. Many of us spend 8 to 12 hours a day on this. And we are not getting rich. Most of us make little to nothing.
The People Doing This Work
This is not an exhaustive list and is in no particular order. It’s a snapshot of a much larger, decentralized community of people. Each person has their own voice, cycle, style, and approach. What they share: a commitment to accuracy, a progressive lean, and a willingness to do the work for little or no compensation.
Brad Cooney (@bradcooney1), a Navy veteran, podcaster, and political commentator. Jake Pagano (@jaketheleftist). Sean Bartley (@seanbartleymusic). Ryan (@mediumboi). Terri Petz (@terripetz). Ryan Anderson (@kolchak). Kavita (@livingkavitaloca). Ashley Renee (@ash.renee411). Heather Ashley (@theheatherashley). And many, many more. Some have huge followings. Some have smaller ones. The ecosystem is broad, and it’s entirely self-organized.
The Actual Labor and Cost
A typical day for a creator in this space looks like this: monitoring wire services (AP, Reuters) for breaking news or court dockets & other sources for those that cover specific beats. Monitoring RSS feeds through paid aggregation services. Monitoring platforms like Ground News for media bias and blindspot analysis. Cross-referencing multiple sources for accuracy. Writing original posts that synthesize and contextualize raw reporting. Composing those posts within Threads’ 500-character limit (a constraint that demands precision, not laziness). Engaging with comments. Correcting misinformation in replies. Writing longer-form deep-dive articles. Fact-checking claims circulating in the broader ecosystem. All in real time, often in response to fast-moving events.
These creators pay out of pocket for tools that most consumers don’t know exist: wire service subscriptions, RSS aggregation tools, Ground News, AI research assistants, and the single most expensive cost of all, their time. Nobody reimburses them. Nobody subsidizes them. The work happens because they choose to do it.
$0.22 an Hour
I’m going to use my own numbers here because I believe in transparency and because I’m tired of dancing around this. These are the actual figures from The Pulse Network’s Substack dashboard as of this writing.
Total subscribers: 1,579. Paid subscribers: 15. Gross annualized revenue: $840 a year. Monthly revenue: roughly $70.
I work 8 to 12 hours a day, 5 to 6 days a week, on political content creation, research, and writing. If you do the math at the low end (8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks), that’s 2,080 hours a year. At the high end (12 hours a day, 6 days a week), that’s 3,744 hours. My effective hourly rate is somewhere between $0.40 and $0.22 an hour. Ohio minimum wage is $10.45. I’m making roughly 3% of that.
Threads itself is entirely non-monetized for creators. There is no Creator Fund. No ad revenue sharing. No tipping feature. No subscription model. Every single post published on Threads generates exactly $0.00 in revenue for the person who created it. Meta profits from the engagement. Creators get nothing.
And when any of us ask followers to “buy us a coffee” or drop a tip link, a portion of the audience calls us grifters. Let that sink in: someone working full-time hours for $0.22 an hour is called a grifter for asking for five bucks.
The Pulse Network’s lowest paid tier is $5 a month. That’s less than an iced coffee at Dunkin. The New York Times charges $16 a month. The Washington Post charges $16 a month. Those outlets employ salaried reporters with benefits, legal teams, and institutional infrastructure. Independent creators on Threads do equivalent (or better) work with none of that support. And they’re asking for less than a coffee.
Meta Built a Platform That Doesn’t Want Us There
In February 2024, Meta announced it would stop proactively recommending political content on Instagram and Threads. Adam Mosseri, the executive overseeing both platforms, confirmed the policy. Meta added a setting that functions as a default-on suppression switch for political content from accounts users don’t already follow. If you haven’t manually changed that setting, you’re not seeing political content from creators unless you already follow them.
In April 2024, hundreds of content creators formally asked Meta to reverse the policy. Meta declined.
On top of that, Threads (like all social media platforms) algorithmically penalizes posts containing external links. Posts with links get reduced distribution. In multi-post threads, a second post containing a link may be actively hidden. This creates an impossible choice: include a source link and have fewer people see your post, or skip the link and reach your audience but face demands for “Source?”
So to be clear about what’s happening: the platform that hosts this political content ecosystem does not pay creators for their content, actively suppresses the reach of political content, penalizes creators for linking to sources, provides a setting that lets users turn off political content entirely, and profits from the engagement these creators drive without sharing a single cent of revenue. Have you noticed that “Political Threads” or “Politics” isn’t even a real topic you can add to your profile? That’s not a partnership with creators. It’s exploitation.
The “Source?” Problem
Let’s talk about the single most corrosive word in the replies: “Source?”
I’m not talking about someone who says, “Hey, can you share a link so I can read more about this?” That’s a good-faith request. That’s engagement. That’s fine.
I’m talking about the one-word reply that functions as a demand for free labor from someone who’s already done the work. It’s a delegitimization tactic that implies the creator is lying or fabricating until proven otherwise. It’s an entitlement claim that treats the creator as an employee who owes the commenter documentation. And it’s a performative skepticism that often comes from people who claim to support independent media but only trust links to the very legacy institutions they claim to distrust.
Here’s the paradox: many of the people demanding “Source?” from independent creators would never walk into the offices of the New York Times and demand to see a reporter’s notes. They wouldn’t reply “Source?” to a CNN chyron. They accept institutional authority from legacy media but refuse to extend any trust to independent creators who are often doing the same work, sometimes faster, sometimes better, and always for free.
And here’s why creators don’t always post links: because the algorithm punishes it. Because the work is already done and the post IS the product of that work. Because Google is free, and the reader has the same internet the creator used. And because trust is earned, and that works both ways. These creators have built track records of accuracy over months and years. If you don’t trust them, then unfollow. That’s a legitimate choice. But demanding that a stranger prove themselves to you in their replies isn’t engagement. It’s entitlement.
The AI Screenshot Problem
There’s another layer to this that makes everything harder: a growing number of accounts on Threads are posting screenshots of AI chatbot outputs as “reporting” or “breaking news.” They do zero fact-checking, zero original sourcing, and present AI-generated text (which can hallucinate, fabricate sources, and invent events) as verified information. They’re chasing engagement, not accuracy, and they have no track record and no accountability.
This degrades trust for everyone. When someone encounters a fake “report” from an AI screenshot account and then encounters a legitimate breaking news post from a creator who actually did the work, the audience can’t always tell the difference. The bad actors make it harder for the real ones to be trusted. And when creators get accused of “posting for engagement,” the accusation is structurally absurd on Threads because Threads pays creators exactly nothing regardless of how viral a post goes. There is no financial incentive for engagement. Creators want reach because reach means the information gets to more people. That’s not profit-seeking. Its distribution.
The Breaking Point Is Happening Now
This isn’t theoretical. This month, multiple creators in this ecosystem have hit the wall publicly, posting about the toll this work takes and the disrespect they face. Here are just a few:
Ryan (@mediumboi) posted: “I get mocked for even SUGGESTING that unsponsored creators deserve to get some donations here and there. We sit here working our asses off for NOTHING but spreading news that MSM hides so we can reclaim our democracy. Your Fox News lying puppet reporters are all millionaires. So do you or do you not want independent content?” One hour later: “Have a good one. I’m logging out to actually enjoy my day for once.”
Brad Cooney (@bradcooney1) posted: “Today was a stressful one on this platform. All I wanna do is share the news, lift up Democrat candidates, and cover live events. It’s sad that people that read what I have to say feel like they have to ruin my day and others day.” Days later, he posted about blocking people who “shot the messenger” over a factual report they didn’t like.
Terri Petz (@terripetz) co-signed Ryan’s post, writing: “I’ve never tried to monetize my account, but he’s right. Some spend hours sourcing information for the benefit of others, not to grow followers.” She then posted about algorithmic suppression and was immediately mansplained in her own replies: “If one more dude tries to mansplain shit to me, I’m gonna lose it. My post about suppression on Threads is not about me. There are amazing creators here that work tirelessly to get facts and information for all of us. That work is being suppressed.”
Later that night, Terri signed off: “I’m following some of my friends here and saying goodnight. So many people up in their feelings, it’s been a rough day. I know this is exhausting, but please try to be kind to each other. We need more of that. Peace.”
This isn’t one person having a bad day. It’s multiple creators, in the same community, with a shared following, in the same week, all reaching the same breaking point from different directions. They’re all confronting the same question sometimes: why am I doing this?
The answer, for most of them, is still “because it matters.” For me, it’s because I want my grandkids to live in a better country than the U.S. is today. But the margin between “it matters” and “I can’t keep doing this” is getting thinner by the week.
Shooting the Messenger
There’s a related pattern that compounds everything: creators get attacked not because the information they post is wrong, but because the audience doesn’t like what the information says. The creator becomes the punching bag for the news itself.
When a creator posts a factual report about something the Trump administration did, the replies fill up with hostility directed at the creator, as if they personally caused the event. Brad described it directly: people “shot the messenger,” and he had to block them. He wasn’t wrong. He wasn’t biased. He reported a fact. People didn’t like the fact, so they attacked the person who told them about it.
Creators are already dealing with “Source?” demands, grifter accusations, platform suppression, and zero compensation. On top of all that, they get blamed for the news. If you want to understand why people are logging off, this is the full picture. It’s not one thing. It’s everything, all at once, every day, for free.
We Are Humans, Not Content Machines
I want to say this as directly as I can: these creators are people. They have families, bills, health issues, mental health issues, and bad days. They are not customer service representatives. They are not employees of their followers. They owe you nothing. The fact that they show up every day and do this work anyway is a gift you didn’t pay for.
What they deal with daily: MAGA trolls (expected, comes with the territory). Concern trolls (less expected, more demoralizing). “Source?” demands from their own audience. Accusations of grifting for asking for pocket change. Accusations of posting “for engagement” on a platform that pays them nothing. Mansplaining and condescension in replies (I call them the ‘Actually…’ people) from people who do none of the work. AI-generated misinformation undermining trust in the broader ecosystem. Platform suppression of their content by the very company hosting them. And the psychological toll of covering traumatic political news 8 to 12 hours a day: wars, corruption, threats to democracy, attacks on marginalized communities.
All for just $0.22 an hour.
What I’m Asking
I’m not asking for sympathy. I’m asking for basic human decency.
If you follow independent political creators on Threads, understand that the post you’re reading represents hours of work you didn’t see. Understand that the person who wrote it paid out of pocket for the tools used to create it. Understand that asking “Source?” is not neutral. It’s a rude demand for free labor. Often, we ARE the source. Understand that the algorithm is working against them, and link-sharing has real costs to their reach. Understand that they make less than minimum wage, and calling them grifters for asking for a coffee is just cruel. Understand that if you don’t trust them, the appropriate response is to unfollow, not to demand they prove themselves to a stranger in the replies.
And understand this: they do it because they believe an informed public matters. That’s it. That’s the whole reason. There is no secret revenue stream. There is no hidden agenda. There is no grift. They are just people who decided that someone needs to do this work, and they’d rather do it for free than let it not get done at all.
The people in this ecosystem are not your employees. They’re not your servants. They’re not your content machines. They’re your internet neighbors who got tired of watching democracy erode and decided to do something about it with the tools they had.
The least you can do is not make their day worse. And if you’ve got five bucks, maybe buy them a coffee. Trust me, they’ve more than earned it.
Josh Schooley is an independent political journalist & opinion writer, LGBTQ+ activist, and founder of The Pulse Network. With nearly 20 years of political commentary and a background in business and accounting, he delivers fact-based analysis with a no-nonsense edge. He lives in Ohio with his family and writes on Threads and Substack.
