It appears Twitter (X) provides a slur pass for users with 30,000 or more followers

This isn’t my normal beat, but since no one else seems to be covering it…

Experimental evidence suggests Twitter has a policy of allowing accounts with more than 30,000 followers to Tweet slurs, including, at a minimum, “F*g**t” and “Cis” (Twitter, bizarrely, regards the word Cis, meaning “not trans”, as a slur) without limiting visibility. This was demonstrated by Twitter user Jenny_Tightpants ( https://twitter.com/halomancer1 ) who, upon noticing that she could use the words without being censored, experimented with the help of many other users, and found the cutoff appears to be 30k. Some of her experiments can be seen here:

https://twitter.com/halomancer1/status/1805008140796407941

With further discussion here:

https://twitter.com/halomancer1/status/1819605694963659142

If Twitter gives leniency to large accounts on this issue, it seems likely the unequal treatment extends to other matters. There has long been speculation that moderation is more lenient in relation to larger accounts and fiercer toward ‘lowbies’.

Musk is of course right-wing, and to me this apparent policy typifies the right-wing approach to free speech. For the Right-winger Free speech is above all threatened when celebrities, including minor celebrities, cannot say provocative things or even feel like they cannot say them. Special measures are thus required to ensure that famous people can say provocative things-e.g. exceptions in the software guardrails, pressure on media companies to keep hiring ‘controversial’ celebrities, etc. This need not apply to little people- whether on Twitter or on the job. Conservatives will, I’m sure, protest the last bit, but even 20 years ago I didn’t see them protesting workers fired for FUCK BUSH bumper stickers and the like, even as they were already protesting conservatives knocked off the A-list for failures of “Political Correctness” (being racist). There has always been a great deal of concern on the right for high-profile figures facing backlash for their opinions, and little concern with protections for the everyday folk- even right-wing everyday folk.

And to forestall objections- no, the left isn’t great on these matters either, but that’s not my topic today.

The economic rationale behind this policy is simple enough. Famous people have power, both on Twitter and off Twitter. If they leave, they take a certain amount of interest in the site with them. If they get angry, their words will reach many consumers (and possibly a few regulators). Better to appease them, then. Utterly craven reasoning.

This is not Twitter’s first break with free speech under Musk. He has banned the word “Cis”, restricted links to rival platforms, and restricted the reach of links to rival platforms (Twitter is not alone in this disgraceful practice), suspended critical reporters, blocked posts supporting a boycott on Twitter advertising and suspended that kid who kept track of his private jet. While Jack was fairly hands-off as a Tweeter, befitting the CEO of the platform, Musk treats the website as a bully pulpit, discarding concerns about apprehended bias. I suppose he’d best get some value out of it, as American ad revenue has fallen by five-sixths under his tenure so he’s certainly not getting his 44 billion back. FIRE documents Musk’s free speech failings here.

As someone with a reasonably successful Substack and generally unsuccessful Twitter account, Musk’s exception for users with 30k followers seems in line with a longstanding pre-Musk trend on Twitter. The algorithms on Twitter seem, for the most part, to favor the already successful. While Substack has an interest in nurturing new writers in the service of getting profitable new paid Subscriptions, Twitter is content to be a conversation of 10,000-25000 or so users with big accounts, mostly independently famous or prominent people, with only the illusion of participation for the rest.