The two researchers who helped discover the identity of Adrian Dittmann, the X user many incorrectly believed was Elon Musk, are being asked to delete more posts about the matter after initially being suspended for their reporting last week.
Ryan Fae and maia arson crimew, the pair who aided journalist Jacqueline Sweet in her piece at the Spectator, titled “The Real Adrian Dittmann,” both received notifications on Monday that they would be forced to delete specific posts referencing Dittmann.
In Fae’s case, two posts merely mentioning Dittmann’s name were alleged to be in violation of X’s policies.
For crimew, a post that didn’t even mention Dittmann’s name was ordered to be removed, while a second post linking to the Spectator’s piece was also flagged.
The new complaints from X come after crimew and Fae were suspended for writing an article of their own offering a deep dive into how they discovered Dittmann.
Links to their article as well as Sweet’s were also blocked from being shared.
The suspensions, which also swept up Sweet for her piece, saw the trio ordered off of X for 30 days, allegedly violating policies on posting private information. Fae and crimew appealed the decision and were informed that their suspensions were shortened to seven days. But around the time the suspensions were up, they received requests from X to delete more posts.
The coverage revealed that Dittmann, contrary to popular belief, was not Musk but instead a German superfan of the X owner living in Fiji.
Strangely, X has since removed its ban on links to the coverage of Dittmann, despite restricting the two.
In a statement to the Daily Dot, crimew argued that their suspension proved just how “childish moderation on X has come under Musk’s rule.”
“To let a week of your month-long suspension on journalists go by before coming back for round two—right as interest in the story already died down, and force them to delete even more posts—is so senseless,” crimew said. “Especially given this second round of forced deletion includes posts referencing no info other than what Dittmann had already shared on X himself, as well as posts containing no rule breaking contents at all.”
In further remarks, crimew also pushed back on assertions that their reporting in any way doxed Dittmann.
“The original stories do not constitute as doxing either,” crimew said. “To show that a person of public interest who posts under his full legal name online is indeed who he claims he is, is nowhere near doxing.”
“This is nothing but petty censorship using one of the most unevenly applied rules on X as an easy cover,” they added.
Despite the crackdown, other outlets that covered and shared the Dittmann discovery on X, including the right-leaning New York Post, have not been suspended.
Neither Sweet nor Fae have deleted their posts and remain suspended. However, crimew, while being interviewed by the Daily Dot, had their account reinstated after they deleted the posts flagged by X.
The confusing scenario, according to Fae, is entirely unsurprising.
“Seeing such a brazen targeting of journalists by Musk’s X is still as alarming as ever,” Fae told the Daily Dot. “For a platform that champions free speech, to go as far as to delete mere mentions of an article by its authors is utterly brainless.”
In an op-ed for the Intercept, Sweet said she believed her ban was ultimately about Musk controlling the flow of information.
It remains unclear if Fae and Sweet will ever regain access to their X accounts without deleting the tweets Musk wants gone.
Internet culture is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter here. You’ll get the best (and worst) of the internet straight into your inbox.
