When Elon Musk bought Twitter in 2022—later rebranded as X—he vowed to turn the platform into a sanctuary for free speech. Calling himself a “free speech absolutist,” Musk positioned himself as a defender of open expression in the digital age. But that commitment is now under intense scrutiny, as several users allege they were punished for criticizing him.
An investigation by The New York Times found that users who had public spats with Musk suddenly experienced a sharp decline in engagement, reach, and access to monetization tools. The pattern raises troubling questions about whether X is quietly muting dissent under Musk’s leadership.
Critics Claim They Were Quietly Silenced
In December, three prominent right-wing influencers—Laura Loomer, Anna Loupis, and Owen Shroyer—publicly criticized Musk’s stance on immigration visa programs. Shortly after their posts went live, all three saw a sudden drop in visibility on the platform.
These weren’t obscure voices. Loomer and Loupis each have over a million followers, and Shroyer hosts a popular show on Infowars. Yet their posts began reaching far fewer people, and their ability to monetize their content through X Premium was also disrupted. For Loomer, this temporary loss of access translated into an estimated $50,000 in missed income.
Loomer, who has built her brand on far-right rhetoric and vocal support for Donald Trump, said Musk’s actions were hypocritical: “You can’t call this a free speech platform and then shut people down financially when they disagree with you.”
Musk’s Cryptic Clues on Content Reach
X offers little transparency around how content is moderated or suppressed. Its internal algorithms are largely hidden from public view, making it nearly impossible to confirm when or why a user’s visibility is throttled. But Musk himself may have offered clues.
Amid his December feud with Loomer and others, Musk posted that accounts blocked or muted by prominent users—like himself—could see their reach diminished. With more than 219 million followers, Musk’s decisions carry substantial weight.
He also hinted that some users may have been removed from the platform’s Premium program, which boosts content visibility and offers revenue sharing. X did not respond to media inquiries seeking clarification, and its public moderation policy claims the company doesn’t limit content based on personal views—a claim critics now find questionable.
Legal Threats and Workarounds
Anna Loupis, who also criticized Musk’s views on immigration, experienced a similar dip in reach. In response, she opened a second account on X. Despite having a smaller following, that new account often outperformed her original one, suggesting her main account was being deliberately throttled.
Loupis now plans to sue Musk and X. Speaking from Denmark, she said, “It’s a betrayal. We believed in Musk’s promises of free speech. It’s turned out to be just talk.”
A Familiar Pattern of Punishment
This isn’t the first time Musk has been accused of punishing critics. In 2022, several journalists were suspended from the platform under vague accusations of violating privacy rules. Their accounts were restored, but without explanation. Critics saw it as another instance of Musk using the platform to enforce his personal boundaries rather than uphold broad free speech principles.
Owen Shroyer’s experience echoes these concerns. After joining the criticism of Musk’s immigration stance, Shroyer saw his posts gain less traction, and his followers no longer encountered his content unless they were online at the exact time he posted. He suspects that his reach was quietly manipulated based on political views, though he stopped short of blaming Musk directly. “Maybe some of the powers he’s delegated are being abused,” he said.
The Cost of Losing Visibility
For creators and influencers, visibility isn’t just about clout—it’s about income. X Premium offers monetization options like ad revenue sharing and subscriptions. Being cut off from those tools, even temporarily, can lead to significant financial losses.
Loomer’s case illustrates the stakes. After her criticism of Musk, she lost access to X Premium and her income plummeted. When her monetization privileges were finally restored, she thanked Musk publicly. He replied simply: “You’re welcome.” The interaction hinted at just how centralized control has become on a platform once celebrated for its open discourse.
“Free Speech, Not Free Reach”
Musk has argued that X will not ban users for controversial opinions but may reduce the visibility of harmful content—a principle he summarizes as “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach.” It’s a stance that attempts to balance openness with moderation. But critics say that selectively muting dissenters is still censorship, just under a different name.
Free speech advocates who once saw Musk as a potential ally are now expressing disappointment. Ari Cohn of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said, “You can’t champion the First Amendment and then silence people who challenge you. That’s not how free speech works.”
Reduced Oversight, Rising Doubts
Since Musk’s takeover, many of the tools used by independent researchers to track changes on X have been removed. This has made it more difficult to monitor shadowbanning or algorithmic suppression.
To investigate the recent allegations, The New York Times relied on an external service that tracks how often users’ posts are seen. They found no clear explanation for the sudden drop in reach beyond the fact that it happened immediately after the users criticized Musk.
As Loupis pointed out, suppression is harder to detect for smaller accounts. “If he did it to people with a hundred followers, no one would care,” she said. “But when you do it to people with a million, everyone notices.”
