Millions Vanish From X

Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” moment promised a free-speech reckoning—now the journalist who helped publish it says Musk is trying to push him off the platform.

Story Snapshot

Musk released internal Twitter documents in late 2022 through select journalists, framing the material as proof of censorship and government pressure.
Matt Taibbi later reported finding no evidence the government drove Twitter’s 2020 decision to block the Hunter Biden laptop story.
By January 2025, Taibbi said Musk sent hostile messages telling him to leave X and “stay on Substack,” signaling a major rupture.
X’s own transparency reporting for early 2024 showed millions of suspensions and removals, complicating “free speech absolutism” branding.

How the “Twitter Files” Started—and Why Selective Disclosure Matters

Elon Musk bought Twitter in October 2022 and began releasing internal company communications to a small group of writers in December 2022, most prominently Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss. The documents, branded “The Twitter Files,” focused heavily on Twitter’s October 2020 decision to restrict a New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Musk portrayed the release as evidence of liberal bias and government-linked pressure, but the rollout remained curated, not fully public.

That selective approach became the core issue: the platform owner controlled which materials were shared, when they were shared, and through whom. Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey publicly called for full transparency—“Make everything public now”—highlighting a basic accountability problem. Conservatives who want genuine sunlight on Big Tech censorship should care about method as much as conclusion; partial disclosures can fuel outrage while leaving Americans unable to independently verify scope, context, and decision chains.

Taibbi’s Reporting Undercut the Central “Government Collusion” Claim

One of the most consequential details in the research is that Taibbi—despite being central to publishing the Twitter Files—reported he found no evidence of government involvement in Twitter’s decision to withhold the Hunter Biden laptop story. That matters because Musk’s public framing leaned heavily on insinuations of state pressure and election-era manipulation. If the journalist reviewing internal records couldn’t substantiate that claim, then the most explosive allegation becomes weaker than many headlines suggested.

Other expert commentary in the research also complicates the narrative. Security expert Alex Stamos stated that FBI reimbursements to Twitter for processing legal requests had “absolutely nothing to do with content moderation,” contradicting interpretations that reimbursement equals censorship payments. Separately, technology journalists criticized the Twitter Files threads as “sloppy” and lacking context. Those critiques don’t prove censorship didn’t happen; they show that the released material did not, by itself, settle the case.

Twitter’s Own Lawyers and the Courts: A Rare, Verifiable Record

The research indicates that by June 2023, Twitter’s own corporate lawyers contested major Twitter Files claims in court filings, described as a detailed rebuttal of some of the biggest assertions. That kind of adversarial record is significant because it is created under legal risk—unlike social-media threads designed to drive narrative. A conservative audience that values due process and verifiable evidence should weigh sworn filings and documented proceedings heavily when separating rhetoric from proof.

At the same time, the existence of legal disputes and competing claims underscores a key limitation: “censorship” is often used broadly, but the factual question is narrower—who requested what, under what authority, and how the platform responded. The research includes references to congressional interest and litigation around X, but it does not provide a single, complete release of records that resolves all disputes. Transparency is still fragmented.

X’s 2024 Transparency Numbers Clash With the “Free Speech” Brand

X’s transparency reporting for January through June 2024 showed the platform suspended more than 5.3 million accounts and removed 10.6 million posts. Those figures don’t automatically tell readers whether enforcement was justified, but they do show that aggressive moderation continued under Musk’s ownership. For Americans concerned about viewpoint discrimination, the question becomes consistency: are rules applied evenly, and are users given clear, fair processes when speech is limited?

This is where conservative skepticism of concentrated power fits the story. A platform can market “free speech absolutism,” but if decisions remain opaque—or if enforcement rises while internal evidence is selectively released—users are left trusting personalities instead of principles. That is not a stable foundation for a digital town square, especially when political speech and election-season controversies are routinely swept into hurried policy calls behind closed doors.

The January 2025 Break: The Messenger Became the Target

In January 2025, Taibbi reported Musk sent him hostile messages, including “You are dead to me. Please get off Twitter and just stay on Substack.” For readers who backed the Twitter Files as a turning point, that reversal is striking: the journalist who helped carry the “exposure” now says he’s being pushed away by the same owner who benefited from the rollout. Even without full context, the message suggests intolerance for internal criticism.

The larger takeaway is less about personalities and more about power. Conservatives have long warned that information gatekeepers can tilt public debate—whether those gatekeepers wear a government badge, a corporate logo, or a self-styled “free speech” brand. If transparency depends on staying in good standing with one powerful owner, the public’s access to truth becomes conditional. That’s not accountability; it’s permission.