Interesting piece, but the narrative of Musk personally hitting a "suppress Loomer" button feels a bit too simplistic, though maybe not entirely wrong.

On one hand, you absolutely have plausible deniability via standard X operations:

"Freedom of Speech, Not Reach": This is literally their stated policy. Content deemed "awful but lawful" gets visibility filtered. Given Loomer's history across platforms , hitting policy thresholds isn't surprising.

Algorithmic Blowback: Musk himself cited high block/mute rates from "credible" (verified) users tanking reach and triggering spam filters. Loomer complained about spam labels , which fits this. Provocative accounts likely attract negative signals.

Technical Glitches: X is notoriously buggy. Verification/Premium features breaking, especially around affiliate links (like the speculated "ConservativeOG" issue ), isn't out of character. Automated account locks/restrictions happen constantly due to generic "unusual activity" flags.

However, dismissing the NYT's core claim entirely ignores:

Musk's Track Record: He does intervene directly and target critics. His control is absolute. The "Evil Housekeeper Problem" applies. He has the keys.

The Timing/Cluster: The H-1B spat immediately followed by specific, similar issues (verification, monetization, reach) for Loomer and ~13 other conservative critics is... convenient timing for purely random glitches or standard enforcement suddenly kicking in for all of them simultaneously.

Targeted Automation: Direct manual suppression is inefficient. But could Musk have ordered tweaks to the algorithm or enforcement rules targeting patterns associated with his critics? E.g., changing spam filter sensitivity, adjusting criteria for verification removal based on certain speech, weighting blocks from certain user groups differently. That's still intervention, just automated.

Opacity: We simply don't know what happens internally at X. Musk's "spam" explanation is unfalsifiable without internal data.

My personal conclusion. Direct, manual suppression by Musk seems less likely than a combination of standard algorithmic/policy effects and maybe some technical debt hitting at an opportune time. But the possibility of indirect intervention (Musk ordering system changes to target critics) fueled by the public spat can't be ruled out, especially given the timing and Musk's history. The NYT might be connecting dots without a smoking gun, but the pattern is suspicious enough that just blaming "the algorithm" feels incomplete.