Fact check: Post Title: Journalists who found Adrian Dittman's "true identity" are strangely forced to delete posts on X Comment Chain: 1. Can someone explain this better? I really don't get it, Does Musk want the world to think Dittman is him? In that case, why? 2. Occam’s razor - Elon is a complete fucking idiot who thought nobody would realise that fake account that pumped him up constantly and was boosted through the roof was actually him. 3. Am I being dumb here? The article says that the journalists were claiming that the account was not actually Elon, but some guy living in Fiji? 4. You are correct, the comments on reddit haven't read the story and are making incorrect assumptions about what it says based on their biases. 5. It is Musk, the article was ginned up by his PR team. They banned the authors since, as Adrian is “real”, they doxxed him. This despite forensic voice analytics basically proving it’s Musk, if you weren’t convinced by the sheer obviousness of that fact based on what he had to say on various X spaces. Original Reddit link: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1i2ke49/comment/m7fafpd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

1. Summary of the results

The situation involves complex claims about the identity of Adrian Dittmann and subsequent actions taken against journalists on X. According to multiple sources, journalists including Ryan Fae, maia arson crimew, and Jacqueline Sweet investigated the Dittmann account and concluded he is a real person - specifically the son of a German software entrepreneur living in Fiji ^{[1] [2]}. After publishing their findings, these journalists faced suspensions and were asked to delete posts, with suspension periods initially set at 30 days and later reduced to 7 days ^[3].

While there are similarities between Musk and Dittmann's voices (with digital forensics showing a 0.5% similarity), there is no conclusive evidence they are the same person ^[1]. The platform X has maintained that a screenshot suggesting admin access was fake ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are missing from the original discussion:

• The journalists' investigation did not actually constitute doxxing, as Dittmann posts under his full legal name ^[3]
• There appears to be selective enforcement of X's policies, as other outlets like the New York Post published similar coverage without facing suspension ^[3]
• The investigation involved multiple parties, including a Swiss hacker working alongside journalists ^[5]
• The Spectator's US managing editor has defended the reporting as being in the public interest ^[5]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The comment chain contains several misconceptions and biases:

• Some comments incorrectly assume the journalists were claiming Dittmann was Musk, when in fact they were reporting the opposite - that Dittmann is a separate individual ^[2]
• The claim about "forensic voice analytics basically proving it's Musk" is an overstatement - while similarities exist, the evidence is not conclusive ^[1]

Several parties have vested interests in this narrative:

• X/Musk: Benefits from maintaining ambiguity about the situation and controlling the narrative through content moderation
• Journalists: Benefit from exposing what they see as platform manipulation
• The Spectator: Benefits from defending its journalists and maintaining press freedom to investigate such stories

The platform's actions of blocking links to the original story ^[5] and targeting specific journalists while leaving others untouched suggests a pattern of selective enforcement that deserves scrutiny.