Hate as a Business Model: Chalmers Takes On Social Media

TVS News AI, editorially supervised, presents Hate as a Business Model: Chalmers Takes On Social Media.

On the evening of October 28, 2026, Jim Chalmers spoke at the Political Book of the Year Awards in Canberra about a specific attack against Indian MP Helen Haines. Haines is recovering in hospital after the incident; police have charged a 43-year-old over the alleged attack outside her Wangaratta electorate office. Chalmers placed the case in a broader context: overheated social media debates are a major factor in the toxicity of politics, including threats and abuse against politicians.

His explanation is blunt: Hate has always existed in Australian society, but it now has “a business model, a formula, an assembly line for mass production.” The Guardian reported on Chalmers’ speech in its live blog covering Australian politics.

Chalmers’ Accusation: Radical Positions Are Rewarded

Algorithms monetize outrage

Chalmers did not discuss any single platform or individual feature. He described the business model behind them. Hate is monetized through “algorithmic rage bait” and used as a weapon. Radical positions therefore receive a financial incentive, while nuanced arguments are pushed aside. His wording is unequivocal: Extremism is incentivized, nuance is punished.

Public figures who are constantly available are said to be particularly at risk. For Chalmers, this presents a specific political task: Books inform people about the world without hardening their own views. Social media, by contrast, harden views without informing them. His statement is therefore not directed at individual posts, but at the mechanism that rewards political attention instead of engagement.

Women in public life are hit particularly hard

Chalmers also described a new form of digital misogyny. It follows women into public life everywhere and makes the political climate especially difficult for them. He did not say that social media causes every attack. His thesis was broader: Overheated discourse contributes significantly to political toxicity, including the threats and insults targeting female and male politicians.

The United States Is Increasingly No Longer Taken for Granted as a Friend

42 percent view Australia’s long-standing ally as a threat

The same news environment leads to a second issue: Australia’s view of the United States. In a YouGov poll commissioned by the Australia Institute, 42 percent of all Australians surveyed viewed the United States as a “threat.” Only about half described the long-standing ally as a friend. In this poll, the term “threat” means a country viewed with caution or distrust, not automatically a military danger.

Among young voters, the picture is even clearer: Only 4 percent describe the United States as a “close friend,” while more than half of young Australians classify the country as a threat. The 42 percent from the poll, by contrast, refers to the overall group of respondents. This makes the figures comparable without obscuring the age difference.

Indonesia leads the United States by 14 percent in the “friend” category

Australia’s immediate geographic neighbors enjoy more trust in the poll than historical allies. Specifically, the analysis names Indonesia, which is also regarded as an emerging partner. In the “friend” category, Indonesia is 14 percent ahead of the United States. Australia’s gaze is therefore not shifting from one ally to another, but from a distant historical partner to a direct neighbor in the region.

Political Groups React Differently to the United States

One Nation and the coalition show considerably more sympathy

The poll also provides a look at individual voter groups. Two-thirds of One Nation voters view the United States as a friend, with the coalition narrowly behind. Among Labor voters, the picture is largely divided. Only a quarter of Greens voters view the United States positively. Chalmers’ comments on social media thus land in a political landscape where attitudes toward the United States already depend on the party and voter group concerned.

Trust in individual heads of government also shows a clear divide. Only 21 percent of respondents trusted Donald Trump to “do the right thing” in world affairs. He was therefore only ahead of the leaders of China, Russia, and North Korea: Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un. The result makes the poll more than a question about friendship between nations. It shows how skeptical Australians have become toward the United States’ political leadership.

Chalmers’ Criticism Targets Attention, Not Individual Accounts

The central accusation is economic

Chalmers’ strongest point lies in the connection between attention and hate. Radical posts generate anger, anger can be monetized, and the resulting visibility rewards extremism. In this system, public figures are particularly vulnerable because they are constantly accessible. The case of Helen Haines makes this mechanism concrete for Chalmers: His speech shortly after the incident was also a call for political distance, reliable sources, and nuanced argumentation.

The statements provide a clear picture, but not a complete explanation for every case of political violence. Chalmers’ accusation that hate has a mass-produced business model, the consequences for women in public life, and his criticism of algorithms that promote outrage are well documented. The poll provides sober figures in parallel: 42 percent perceive a threat across the overall group, 4 percent call the United States a “close friend” among young voters, and 14 percent is Indonesia’s lead in the friend category.