Artemis II Returns From the Moon as Old Conspiracies Find New Life Online

9 April 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

A Mission in Motion, Not Preparation

Artemis II is no longer a promise or a plan. It is a live, unfolding mission.

Having successfully travelled beyond low Earth orbit and looped around the Moon, the crew are now on their return journey to Earth. In doing so, they have already secured their place in history as the first humans in more than half a century to venture into deep space. The mission itself has been widely followed, not just through official NASA channels but across social media, where images, clips and astronaut updates have circulated in near real time.

Among the most striking moments so far have been the views of Earth from lunar distance. These are not abstract renderings or archival references. They are current, high-resolution visuals captured by a crew physically present in deep space. For many, it has been a powerful reminder of both scale and perspective, reinforcing the reality of human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit.

Yet as these images spread, something else has travelled with them.

Earthrise over the Moon's horizon, showing Earth partially lit against the blackness of space. The Moon's surface is grey and textured.

The Return of a Familiar Narrative

Alongside the excitement and global attention, Flat Earth narratives have begun to reappear with renewed visibility. As with previous milestones in space exploration, the mission has acted as a catalyst rather than a cause.

Footage from Artemis II, particularly anything showing Earth as a curved, distant sphere, has been picked apart across various platforms. Claims of digital manipulation, lens distortion and staged environments have resurfaced, often attached to short clips or isolated frames removed from their original context.

This is not evidence of a growing movement in terms of numbers. It is, however, a clear increase in visibility. The scale of Artemis II has pulled these conversations back into mainstream timelines, where they sit alongside genuine public interest and scientific engagement.

Real-Time Content, Real-Time Reaction

What distinguishes Artemis II from earlier missions is the immediacy of its coverage. This is not a mission filtered through delayed broadcasts or carefully edited highlights. It is being experienced as it happens.

That immediacy has a double edge. On one hand, it allows for unprecedented access and transparency. On the other, it provides a constant stream of material that can be reinterpreted, clipped and redistributed without context.

A reflection in a window, a momentary visual artefact in a video feed, or even the way lighting behaves inside the spacecraft can quickly be reframed as suspicious. Once those clips are detached from their technical explanations, they take on a life of their own within certain online communities.

The speed at which this happens is key. Reaction no longer follows the event. It unfolds alongside it.

Scepticism in the Age of Algorithms

Flat Earth content does not exist in isolation. It is sustained by a broader culture of scepticism towards institutions, particularly those associated with government and large-scale scientific endeavour.

NASA, as both a symbol of authority and a source of complex, hard-to-verify information, naturally becomes a focal point. Artemis II, with its deep space trajectory and high visibility, fits neatly into that framework.

Social media platforms then amplify the effect. Content that challenges, contradicts or provokes tends to perform well, regardless of its factual basis. As a result, posts questioning the mission often gain traction not because they are persuasive, but because they are engaging.

This creates a distorted sense of scale. What is, in reality, a fringe viewpoint can appear far more prominent than it actually is.

The Broader Public Perspective

Outside of these pockets of scepticism, the response to Artemis II has been largely one of fascination and admiration. The mission has reignited interest in human spaceflight, particularly among audiences who have never experienced a live crewed journey beyond Earth orbit.

There is also a noticeable difference in tone compared to previous eras. The Apollo missions were moments of collective attention, where a single narrative dominated public consciousness. Artemis II exists in a far more fragmented environment, where multiple conversations unfold simultaneously.

In that landscape, it is entirely possible for celebration, curiosity and conspiracy to coexist without directly intersecting.

A Reflection of the Modern Media Landscape

The re-emergence of Flat Earth narratives during Artemis II is not an anomaly. It is part of a broader pattern that defines how major events are now experienced.

Every significant moment generates its own parallel discourse. One is grounded in reality, driven by science, engineering and exploration. The other is shaped by interpretation, scepticism and the mechanics of online engagement.

Artemis II, currently making its way back to Earth, sits at the centre of both.

The mission itself is a clear demonstration of human capability and technological progress. The conversation around it, however, reveals something different. It highlights how information is processed, challenged and reshaped in real time.

In that sense, Artemis II is not just a journey through space. It is a case study in how modern audiences navigate truth, trust and visibility in an increasingly complex digital world.

Current Most Read

Streamlining Small Business Operations for Maximum Efficiency

Posts Are Down, But Scrolling Isn’t: Are We Watching More and Sharing Less on Social Media?

The Streaming Divide: Why Pop Superstars Earn Millions While Most Musicians Struggle to Survive

Paul Francis
Nov 11, 2025
4 min read

For millions of music fans, every song is just a click away. Streaming platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music and their competitors now generate billions of dollars in annual payouts. Yet for many artists, the income is barely enough to live on. Meanwhile, a small group of global superstars enjoy platform-shattering success and headline tours that gross tens of millions.

Grid of colorful squares displaying music genres like Chill, Jazz, Latin, R&B. Each square features album art and genre text.

What is driving this gap? And how does it affect the new generation of musicians trying to build careers from their craft?

The Vast Payouts, But Not for Everyone

In 2024, Spotify revealed that it had paid out more than US$10 billion in royalties to the music industry. On the surface, this appears to be a thriving ecosystem. However, the distribution of that money tells a very different story.

According to independent data, artists who own their masters earned an average of US$3.41 per 1,000 streams globally in 2024, down from around US$4.04 in 2021. That is equal to about US $0.0034 per stream. If an artist earns 100,000 streams in a month, they might make only US$340.

Streaming services typically use what is called a pro-rata payment model. Revenue is pooled together and divided according to each artist’s percentage of total streams. In practice, this benefits major artists with the biggest catalogues, label backing and playlist exposure. Smaller acts receive only a fraction.

The Top Three Per Cent Take the Prize

The upper tier of the music world is thriving. Large-scale artists, major labels and streaming megastars command huge global audiences and, as a result, absorb the majority of the payouts. Spotify’s disclosures show that only a very small number of artists earn six-figure sums, and even fewer reach seven or eight figures.

These artists also benefit from multiple income streams, including live tours, merchandise, brand sponsorships and sync licensing. For them, streaming is only one part of a much larger financial picture.

In contrast, mid-tier and independent artists face an entirely different reality: low streaming income, high touring costs and fierce competition for attention.

Touring: The Lost Income Stream

Touring has long been the lifeblood of working musicians. It provides not only income but also exposure and connection with fans. Yet the economics of touring have changed dramatically.

Shirley Manson from Garbage sings passionately into a microphone on stage, wearing sunglasses and a black sleeveless top. Bright stage lights in the background. — Image by Concerttour, via Wikimedia Commons

Frontwoman Shirley Manson of the band Garbage has been one of the most vocal critics of the modern music economy. During the band’s 2025 North American tour, she stated that Garbage would no longer attempt full-scale headline tours in the region because the costs had become impossible to sustain for “a band like us with a 30-year career.”

She pointed out that the average musician makes about US$12 a month from streaming. Rising fuel costs, staff wages, travel expenses, insurance and venue fees make touring a financial risk even for acts with decades of experience.

If an established band like Garbage cannot justify a tour, the situation for emerging artists is even more difficult.

Why It Is So Hard for New Artists

1. Algorithms and Exposure

Streaming platforms depend heavily on algorithmic curation and official playlists. These are dominated by major-label artists and global hits. For newcomers, breaking into these lists is extremely difficult without marketing support or label funding.

2. Low Payouts Per Stream

With an average of only a few thousandths of a dollar per play, musicians need millions of streams to earn a modest income. Many independent acts never reach those numbers, particularly if they are working in niche genres.

3. Touring Costs

Live performances require significant investment: travel, crew, accommodation, equipment, promotion and management. When streaming revenue cannot cover those costs, artists often face a choice between going into debt or not performing at all.

4. Limited Alternative Income

Other income streams, such as merchandise, fan subscriptions and brand partnerships, require upfront investment and constant marketing. The modern artist must act as a full-time entrepreneur, not just a creator.

5. Lack of Collective Representation

The power in the industry still rests with major labels, streaming platforms and live promoters. Musicians have little collective bargaining power. Shirley Manson has said, “There’s no effective union for musicians that fights for young musicians,” highlighting how vulnerable creators are in the system.

Reforms That Could Help

Many artists and advocates are calling for reforms to make the industry fairer:

User-centric payment models: Each listener’s subscription fee would be divided only among the artists they actually play, instead of being pooled across the entire platform.
Transparent royalties: Artists are demanding clear information on how streaming payouts are calculated and divided.
Touring support: Some suggest public or private funding to help mid-tier artists continue performing live.
Union representation: A stronger collective voice could help secure fairer contracts and protect creative rights.
Diverse income sources: Encouraging direct fan funding, independent distribution, live streaming, and non-traditional deals can help artists stay independent.

The Reality of the Numbers

To put it in perspective: at US $3.41 per 1,000 streams, an artist would need nearly 300,000 monthly plays to make US $1,000. This does not include taxes, label cuts or management fees.

Meanwhile, top artists such as Taylor Swift, Drake and Ed Sheeran receive hundreds of millions of plays per month and can negotiate higher royalty splits through their labels. The gap between these global names and working musicians continues to widen every year.

The Future of Music

The digital era has made it easier than ever to release songs, but far harder to make a living from them. For many, the dream of a sustainable music career now feels out of reach.

As Shirley Manson warned, when only the most commercial voices can afford to continue, “you’ll lose generations of esoteric, creative weirdos.” The danger is not only economic but cultural. A world without risk-taking, diverse music is one that loses its heartbeat.

If the industry wants to stay vibrant, it must find a way to support artists beyond the top three per cent. Because innovation, authenticity and emotional connection often come from the middle — not the mainstream.