LIKE OUR WORK?
X’s premium subscription tiers, including Premium and Premium+, have been aggressively marketed with promises of enhanced visibility through a feature called reply boost, enticing users to pay anywhere from three to twenty dollars monthly for supposed algorithmic advantages. Yet, a growing chorus of user complaints reveals a starkly different reality, where replies intended for boosted visibility are instead being funneled into probable spam folders, effectively silencing them rather than amplifying them. This discrepancy is not a minor glitch but a systemic betrayal, as subscribers like KellyG581976179 and unkonfined have publicly lamented on the platform, noting that their paidfor replies are being throttled and mislabeled as spam despite adhering to community standards. The issue extends beyond individual frustration, with users such as LauraLoomer and jamesxond reporting similar experiences, their voices drowned out despite their significant followings and premium status. This pattern suggests a deliberate scam, where X lures users with false advertising, only to deliver the opposite of what was promised, reducing visibility below that of free accounts and undermining the very engagement subscribers seek.
This practice reeks of fraud, a calculated deception that violates both trust and legal boundaries. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission mandates truthful advertising, and X’s failure to deliver reply boost while marking paid replies as spam could breach these regulations, potentially triggering civil penalties or even criminal charges under statutes like 15 US Code 54 if intent to defraud is proven. In Canada, the Competition Act criminalizes knowingly misleading representations under Section 52, a provision that could ensnare X given the widespread reports of suppressed replies during the recent federal election. The pathway to this fraud is clear: X advertises a premium service, collects payment, and then employs algorithmic manipulation to suppress content, a baitandswitch tactic that misleads consumers into financial loss. This is not a mere oversight but a profitable scheme, as X continues to rake in subscription revenue while delivering a service that actively harms user engagement, a textbook case of false advertising that courts have penalized in similar contexts.
The hypocrisy of Elon Musk, who has styled himself as the messiah and savior of free speech since acquiring X, only amplifies the outrage. Musk’s grandiose claims of dismantling censorship ring hollow when his platform systematically throttles paid users, turning their words into digital whispers buried in spam folders. His partnership with Donald Trump, who has openly supported Mark Carney’s leadership in Canada, adds a layer of suspicion, especially as Canadian conservatives with large followings reported rampant suppression during the 2025 election. Users like PierrePoilievre, with his substantial audience, voiced concerns about search bans and reply throttling, while MaximeBernier, another prominent conservative voice, complained of his posts being relegated to probable spam despite his vocal opposition to Carney. These tactics mirror election meddling, a manipulation of public narrative that echoes the interference tactics of Russia or China, yet Musk and Trump face no equivalent scrutiny. The United States should not be exempt from investigation, as this suppression could sway electoral outcomes, a possibility underscored by the coordinated complaints that flooded X during the Canadian vote.
The suppression extends beyond individual grievances, painting a picture of a platform that cannot resist censoring and controlling discourse, even when users pay for the opposite. During the Canadian election, the timing of these spam classifications aligned suspiciously with political debates, suggesting a deliberate effort to silence dissenting voices. Largefollowing users like CandiceBergen and LeslynLewis, both conservative figures, reported their replies being shadowbanned or lost in spam, their influence curtailed as Carney’s narrative gained traction. This is not about protecting users but about shaping opinion, a manipulation that Musk’s free speech absolutism fails to address. Why must platforms like X, under Musk’s watch, suppress honest expression? The answer lies in a desire to control the public narrative, a power grab that prioritizes profit and political alignment over principle. This censorship, especially during a critical election, reeks of fraud and meddling, warranting a class action lawsuit to hold X accountable.
A class action lawsuit is not only justified but imperative, given the scale of this deception. Affected users across Canada and the US, numbering in the thousands based on social media outcry, could unite to seek damages for financial loss and emotional distress caused by X’s false advertising. The legal pathway is welltrodden, with precedents like the Facebook advertising scam lawsuits providing a blueprint. Users must document their subscription payments, screenshot spam classifications, and gather testimony from peers like LauraLoomer or PierrePoilievre, whose highprofile complaints lend weight to the case. Lawyers specializing in consumer protection could certify a class, arguing that X’s misleading promotions constitute a breach of contract and statutory violations. The goal is not just compensation but a reckoning, forcing X to end this scam and restore the free expression it claims to champion. Musk’s messianic posturing cannot shield him from the reality that his platform’s actions betray every promise he has made, turning X into a tool of suppression rather than liberation.
The broader question looms: why can people not simply say what they want without being suppressed? The answer lies in the vested interests of platforms like X, where control over narrative trumps user autonomy. Musk’s alliance with Trump, coupled with his influence over X’s algorithm, suggests a deliberate strategy to favor certain voices while silencing others, a manipulation that extends to international elections. The Canadian conservative outcry during the 2025 vote, with users like CandiceBergen decrying search bans and LeslynLewis noting reply suppression, highlights a pattern of election interference that demands investigation. This is not free speech but a curated echo chamber, where Musk’s savior complex masks a willingness to meddle in democracy. The United States must treat this with the same rigor as foreign interference, launching probes into X’s practices to ensure fairness, while a class action lawsuit becomes the weapon to dismantle this fraudulent empire and reclaim the right to unfiltered expression.
LIKE OUR WORK?