really appreciate the constructive criticism — you're totally right, i should’ve highlighted the sources more clearly. there were three main pieces of actual e

really appreciate the constructive criticism — you're totally right, i should’ve highlighted the sources more clearly. there were three main pieces of actual evidence i leaned on: 1. the nytimes story on account silencing, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon-musk-x-suppression-laura-loomer.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon... 2. the visible boost of low-value tweets (though i should have connected to the x api hose and quantify the data), 3. this paper — https://github.com/timothyjgraham/AlgorithmicBiasX/blob/3f4ca90ac156d88bdaf398caa518ac86f69c5885/A%20computational%20analysis%20of%20potential%20algorithmic%20bias%20on%20platform%20X%20during%20the%202024%20US%20election-4.pdf https://github.com/timothyjgraham/AlgorithmicBiasX/blob/3f4c... which actually didn’t make it to the the post because the essay was basically finished by the time i remembered i had it. I should have included it. it shows an algo change that boosts elon’s reach specifically. every other source was speculative: superbowl fiasko - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/15/elon-musk-changes-twitter-algorithm-super-bowl-slump-report https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/15/elon-musk... - little evidence elon forced 100 engineers to boost his tweets ? - hearsay there are also supposed whistle blowers - https://substack.com/@theconcernedbird/p-154577954 https://substack.com/@theconcernedbird/p-154577954 - but again. no evidence. And the algorithm is still closed source. i’m sorry the writing beyond the graph didn’t land for you. mr gruez - I'll do better next time. -- the author