Breaking Down ‘X’s’ First Transparency Report: Implications for the Platform and Its Users
Multiple screens show the login page for ‘X,” formerly known as Twitter, as the platform releases its first-ever transparency report under Elon Musk. Source: Darko Vojinovic via AP Photo
X, formerly known as Twitter, has released its first-ever transparency report since being purchased by Elon Musk in 2022. The release of X’s first transparency under Elon Musk is a step that could influence the platform’s future for its uses and overall brand image. On the one hand, the report shows X’s dedication to content moderation by suspending millions of accounts and removing harmful posts, which could potentially help rebuild trust among users concerned with safety and dangerous behavior. On the other hand, this increased moderation contradicts Musk’s earlier promise of promoting free speech, something he has been very vocal about, potentially alienating users who see X becoming more restrictive.
Before Elon Musk’s takeover, Twitter would release transparency reports every six months. Transparency reports are documents released by a platform that detail various actions taken to enforce policies, such as removing harmful content, account suspension, and governmental data requests. Since Elon Musk purchased Twitter (now X), the platform's approach to transparency and content moderation has shifted dramatically. Musk reinstated several high-profile accounts, such as those belonging to Kanye West and Donald Trump. It introduced policies to reduce spam and bot activity, including a $1 annual fee for new users in select countries. Additionally, the company removed the 'legacy' verification badges and implemented Twitter Blue for paid users. The most recent report, which covered from January to June 2024, revealed that during this period, X suspended over 5.3 million accounts and removed 10.6 million posts. These changes indicate a shift in how the platform approaches the handling of harmful content, one that could redefine how users interact on X and how the social media platform is perceived.
The release of X’s transparency report aims to signal a clear message: “Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Reach.” This slogan reflects X’s approach to restricting harmful content without outright removing it, balancing allowing users to express themselves and ensuring the platform remains a safe space for all its users. However, this increased moderation, highlighted by the millions of accounts being suspended, might suggest a level of control that some users perceive as restricting their freedom to express views, creating a growing tension over what freedom of speech means on the platform. Elon Musk’s actions further complicate this debate. Musk has previously posted conspiracy theories and feuded with world leaders and politicians. X has been banned in Brazil due to a dispute between Musk and a Brazilian Supreme Court judge over free speech, far-right accounts, and misinformation. Though Musk’s comments are often divisive and, in my view, harmful to productive discourse, banning him from his platform presents its challenges. Allowing platform owners like Elon Musk to wield unchecked power over speech could set a dangerous precedent. Free speech empowers individuals to voice their views without fear of government retaliation or censorship, making accountability through transparent policies and public oversight crucial. Silencing Musk outright only reinforces unilateral control, undermining this essential balance. If millions of accounts are suspended, social media platforms and their leaders, including Musk, will face heightened scrutiny. There’s a fine line between building trust and alienating users, and maintaining this balance is essential to upholding free speech and user confidence.
While the report highlights efforts to moderate harmful content, it also fuels concerns about censorship. With millions of posts being labeled or removed, some users feel their voices are stifled. Musk's selective adherence to free speech and moderation guidelines creates an imbalance, highlighting the need for a platform that upholds free speech without undermining public safety. As more content is removed, many wonder whether the platform's pledge to uphold free speech is being compromised, casting doubt on how “free” the platform truly is.
The complexity of this debate deepens when we consider compliance with government requests, especially with the 2024 election looming. X’s recent transparency report reveals a 71% compliance rate with government removal requests, reflecting a murky balance between Musk’s anti-censorship stance and the platform’s legal obligations. However, how this approach will impact public discourse is concerning. As political information flows through X, the decisions Musk’s platform makes—whether to restrict content or comply with takedown requests—could directly influence what information voters can access. Free speech is essential, but so is a free press, and with X’s restrictive practices, freedom may be at stake. What does this mean for X in an election cycle where information control is as robust as any campaign slogan? For X, this means walking a tightrope between protecting free speech and ensuring user safety—a balance that could define its future success or failure.
Since Musk’s takeover, X has faced backlash over chaotic management and erratic policy changes. Although the transparency report tries to address these concerns, it exposes contradictions between Musk’s free-speech rhetoric and the platform’s increasingly restrictive actions. Despite Musk’s claims of making X a haven for open dialogue, more content is being removed, and accounts are being suspended at a rate higher than before. This trend contradicts his original promises and points to a troubling shift.
With Musk’s outspoken support for Trump—including using X to amplify his campaign’s messages while silencing critics—X risks becoming a political weapon rather than a platform for genuine discourse. Musk’s approach seems less about protecting free speech and more about controlling it to fit his agenda. An example of this occurred when several left-wing journalists and commentators, including The Intercept’s investigative reporter Ken Klippenstein, were suspended from Twitter—still “Twitter” to many, despite its rebranding to X—without explanation. The common thread among these accounts was their criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza. This selective moderation threatens to stifle diverse viewpoints and could skew public perception in ways that erode trust. If Musk truly believes in free speech, he should prioritize a fair, transparent approach, not one that serves his personal politics. His actions now risk undermining X’s credibility and the integrity of public discourse itself. Independent data suggests X's challenges run deeper. Edison Research reported in March that U.S. usage of X had plunged by nearly 30% over the previous year. Additionally, Fidelity, a multinational financial services firm, recently estimated an 80% drop in X's valuation since Musk’s 2022 acquisition, reflecting the platform's stark decline.
By releasing this report, X aims to assure stakeholders that it can manage user safety responsibly while claiming to uphold free speech. For advertisers, it may suggest a move toward stability, but it raises new concerns for users. Musk’s selective content moderation and his support of a particular political agenda create an environment that may look more like controlled speech than free discourse. In an election cycle where information access is crucial, this approach could deter diverse viewpoints and erode users’ trust in the platform.
Beyond just X, this shift sends a message to the entire tech industry. If Musk can influence what information spreads on his platform, who’s to say other tech giants won’t adopt similar practices? Social media should foster open dialogue and allow the press to operate freely, but X’s new direction could encourage competitors to tighten control over political narratives. Rather than protecting open discussion, this trend risks turning platforms into tools for selective influence. To genuinely uphold free speech, Musk must commit to moderation practices that protect users’ rights and the transparency essential to any democracy.
However, transparency brings the complex challenge of balancing corporate responsibility with First Amendment rights. While Musk has championed free speech, X’s transparency report reveals a selective approach, limiting the reach of harmful content without entirely removing it. This compromise may seem like a way to protect user expression. Still, in reality, it risks creating an environment where harmful content slips through, undermining the platform's stated goals and allowing users to work around weak moderation.
As we approach a critical election, the impact of this selective moderation on public discourse cannot be ignored. Free speech is essential, but so is a free press, and X’s restrictive nature threatens to undermine both by controlling which voices are amplified and which are subdued. With increased public scrutiny and regulatory pressure, X is responsible for creating a moderation system that doesn’t just limit content based on vague criteria but upholds transparency and enforces policies consistently. A truly democratic approach would mean clarifying policies so all users—regardless of political leanings—can engage in open, informed debate.
If X cannot moderate effectively and impartially, then claiming to be a champion of free speech is empty. X should adopt clear, consistent policies that respect First Amendment values without veering into selective control. This would prevent the platform from becoming a tool for narrow influence and help protect the freedom of both individual expression and the press. As X navigates this, the decisions made now will influence not only X’s credibility but the integrity of social media as a platform for democratic discourse.