The biggest battle over free speech isn’t in Congress

X’s crackdown on big “repost” accounts shows how the people who really lose control of the online conversation are everyday users, not the powerful platforms or political elites.

Story Snapshot

X demonetized huge accounts for reposting viral videos without credit, and changed payouts to favor “original” creators.
X’s new policies are complex and vague, leaving normal users unsure what is allowed and how to fight unfair decisions.

X’s New Monetization Rules Target Repost Accounts

In late May, X rolled out a major change to how creators earn money, aimed squarely at accounts that reupload other people’s videos. X’s head of product, Nikita Bier, said the platform would redirect views and revenue from reposted clips to the original creator, even when repost accounts rack up millions of views. He also confirmed that X has identified large accounts that systematically re-upload content to game the revenue-sharing system. On paper, this is about stopping stolen content and low-effort engagement bait, and rewarding people who make things themselves.

X did not just talk; it named names. Bier announced that Disclose.tv, a news and clips account with about two million followers, was demonetized after reuploading Blue Origin rocket crash footage shot by photographer Adam Bernstein, removing his watermark and giving no credit. Another account, @Rainmaker1973, with more than four million followers, was also demonetized after reposting thousands of videos from smaller creators over six months without proper attribution. These moves send a sharp message: even big, popular channels can lose their income overnight if X decides their content is “stolen” or “engagement farming.”

Penalty Cuts And Gray Areas For Everyday Creators

Beyond demonetizing a few giants, X has changed how it pays all “aggregator” accounts that organize or repost other people’s posts. Bier previously said these creators would see their payments cut to 60 percent of normal, with another 20 percent cut planned soon after. That turns what used to be a full-rate income stream into a kind of second-class status for non-original content. The rules say X wants better content and less spam, but they leave big questions for normal users who share clips, memes, and news every day.

For example, the policy focuses on “reuploading content from smaller creators to gain views” but does not clearly explain what counts as “proper attribution.” It also does not spell out how remix or reaction content fits into the idea of an “original creator.” There is no public proof of the algorithm or data logs X uses to tell a stolen upload from a fair, credit-given share. When rules are this vague, power shifts toward whoever controls the system, and away from the millions of people trying to follow it on faith.

Conservative Influencers Say They Were Singled Out

As X tightened these rules, many conservative voices reported sudden demonetization, and they say it was not about stolen videos. Newsweek found that accounts such as Dom Lucre, Ethan Levins, and American Citizen shared screenshots of official emails from X saying they were removed from creator revenue sharing for “violations of monetization standards,” with no clear warning or explanation. Dom Lucre wrote that X emailed him that his “creator monet is paused” and that he “received no warning,” contradicting claims of a fair and transparent process.

A YouTube breakdown of X monetization in 2026 says users who are demonetized often cannot appeal effectively, even though X formally offers an appeal option. At the same time, Reddit users in X help forums complain that their appeals about account actions are ignored or never answered. This mix of harsh penalties, unclear reasons, and weak appeals fuels a narrative: the platform has huge power to kill income and reach, but very little accountability to the people it affects, especially when they speak about politics.

Broader Pattern: Platforms Rewrite Rules Of Speech And Money

Fights like this are not new. Researchers who studied YouTube’s “Adpocalypse” in 2017 showed that sudden demonetization changes reshaped which voices could earn money and be heard, while leaving real control in the hands of the platform and its advertisers. Similar work on social media monetization warns that when algorithms decide who gets paid, demonetization can become a form of censorship by proxy, even if companies insist they are only targeting spam or “unsafe” content. X’s crackdown on reposts fits that pattern and raises the same questions about fairness, bias, and hidden levers of power.

The deeper worry, shared by many on both the right and the left, is that big platforms and the elites who run them can quietly change rules in ways that hurt normal people chasing the American Dream online. Conservatives see patriotic accounts cut off in the name of “policy,” while liberals see engagement-driven feeds drown out thoughtful voices and widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. Both sides watch opaque systems decide who gets paid to speak, and who gets pushed into silence, with almost no public proof or real appeal.