Ghost banning accounts (mostly unverified ones) by giving them temporary label, and for them to appeal the ban they need the premium.

And it's funny that there is no other details about the "label" are given for the user. User doesn't know what to do, what not to do. When will the Label go away?, no information is given. Unless you pay for twitter premium.

This comes at a time where they announced they are discontinuing the Current Payout system.

Either the company is at a loss. Or they are shutting down pretty soon.

I’m seeing so many different timelines lol, how many appeals did you do? What appeal worked for you?

Inauthentic behaviors my ass, I hate Elon and Nikita

I published my first ever post on X, with a link to my full equity research article. The post was getting good traction for it being my first one. Within 2 hours of posting, my account got suspended for some reason, citing "inauthentic behavior". I am not sure what was inauthentic about a research article, with proper disclaimers. I replied to maybe 1-2 posts of the same ticker, in an attempt to drive some traffic toward mine, which I don't think should have caused an issue?

I appealed, confident that it must have been a stupid bot mistake, but got a reply today saying "we will not overturn our decision to lock your account." .... I mean tf?

I am kinda cooked if I am perma suspended from X, since that was a medium I was counting on to grow an audience and land opportunities.
The appeal form is not allowing me to submit another one. If anyone could help me out as to how do I get my account back, it would be a big big help.

I do not wish to make another account, since the bot explicitly mentioned not to make another account to circumvent the suspension, and I do not wanna risk a ban.

I write this post because i got frustrated with x.com practices. I was mostly a EU lurker user, reading posts in some niches and reading political posts for entertainment. I once in a while liked something or posted some replies (rarely). I also used VPNs in public WiFi's.

I always had problems with my account. Some weird "you can't post now" blue banner nonsense. And then i could post anyways. My account got "suspended" without reason. Then "unsuspended" without reason. I didn't care too much, because i only read anyways. I got suspended again a couple of days ago (read only). "Oh well". But then when i clicked on a Like i got redirected first to Cloudflare and then to their mobile app website "prove you are human" with the QR code.

Not a fan. I am a PC user. When i checked the Code it asked for 3 options (i think you guys already posted the picture). All maximally intrusive. I am not going to do this, so i wanted to delete my account.

That is when i discovered the beauty of it all 😂

You see x.com provides a service for users. But that is not all. It also provides a service for regulatory compliance. And it has put both behind the same "prove you are a human" wall. See where this is getting?

The service for users might have a ToS and the user may be a peon. But the service for regulatory compliance is one that has a 500 pound Gorilla standing behind it: the EU. A user may have to talk to AI chatbots and workflows. If a company fails compliance a body like the EU might say "nice revenue you have there, would be a shame if something happened to 4% of it". Theoretical? Somewhat. But it is enough to give risk departments nightmares if the problem is systemic. And the EU is currently already very pissed at Mr. Musk.

I am just a general old fart enterprise architect. But i think this is what happened:

X appears to have put one general anti-bot control in front of its entire account interface. That includes settings, data export, privacy controls, and account deletion. What does this mean? The X genius, hotshot "architects" failed at basic requirements engineering and state modelling. They coupled unrelated bounded contexts with different SLAs. Well, enough rambling 😄

X cannot put legal obligations they have to perform, for example account deletion, behind an unrelated mechanism that includes biometrics that you have to consent to. Therefore, if you are EU citizen, you can demand remediation when it comes to afforded rights (GDPR).

I created a template that covers data requests and deletion of the X account based on my email. It includes instructions to tailor it to your specific case, which needs to be done. If you just send bulk complaints, X can reject outright on legal grounds.

So here goes, have fun ❤️:

Step 1: Write your personal complaint first

This part must be yours. Describe what happened to you. Do not copy somebody else’s personal story.

Write a short account in your own words:

1. When did the restriction appear?
2. What device and browser were you using?
3. Were you logged in, or did X otherwise appear to associate the browser with your account?
4. What exactly appeared on the screen?
5. What did X instruct you to do?
6. Which steps did you attempt?
7. What did the mobile app say about cameras, liveness, or biometric data?
8. Are you quoting the screen exactly or describing it from memory?
9. Did you preserve screenshots, URLs, error messages, or notes?
10. Why will you not or cannot complete the procedure?
11. Which account, privacy, data-access, or deletion functions are now inaccessible?
12. On what date did you consult X’s data-access instructions, and what happened when you tried to follow them?
13. Did X prevent you from reaching the password-confirmation step?
14. Did the challenge also appear when you simply opened x.com?
15. What do you personally want X to do?

Your account can be five sentences or twenty. It only needs to explain truthfully what happened, what evidence you have, what concerns you, and what you want X to do.

Write and save this personal account before copying the email template.

Step 2: Document X’s data-access instructions

Open X’s official data-access help page.

Record:

• the date;
• the URL;
• the instructions shown on the page;
• whether you were already logged in;
• what happened when you tried to follow them;
• whether the challenge prevented you from reaching Settings, the account archive, or password confirmation; and
• whether the same challenge appeared when you simply visited x.com.

Save:

• a screenshot or PDF of the help page;
• the URL and date;
• the account-wide human-verification screen;
• the QR code and mobile-app instruction, with the QR code redacted if necessary;
• any biometric or liveness notice displayed in the app; and
• evidence showing that the challenge prevented you from reaching the documented privacy procedure.

Step 3: Complete and send the template

Before sending it:

• replace every field written in ALL CAPITALS;
• insert the personal account you wrote in Step 1;
• search the finished message for [ and remove every remaining instruction;
• read the entire request;
• remove anything you do not personally want to request; and
• send it through X’s official privacy channel or by post to its EU data controller.

X identifies its EU controller as:

X Internet Unlimited Company
Attn: Data Protection Officer
One Cumberland Place, Fenian Street
Dublin 2, D02 AX07
Ireland

Email: dpo@x.com

X also provides an official Privacy Policy Inquiries form or use another contact method listed in X’s Privacy Policy.

EMAIL TEMPLATE

Subject: Exercise of GDPR rights, request for alternative authentication, and account erasure: YOUR X HANDLE

Dear Data Protection Officer,

I am writing regarding the X account YOUR X HANDLE, registered to YOUR REGISTERED EMAIL ADDRESS. I am sending this request from that registered email address.

I confirm that I am a natural person and the person to whom the registered email address and account relate. The fact that I use a pseudonymous account name does not alter that fact.

My experience with the service

[MANDATORY: INSERT THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT YOU WROTE BEFORE COPYING THIS TEMPLATE. IT MUST DESCRIBE YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE, EVIDENCE, CONCERNS, AND REQUESTED OUTCOME. IF THIS INSTRUCTION IS STILL PRESENT, DO NOT SEND THE REQUEST.]

The statement above is my personal account of what occurred. I wrote it based on my own experience and recollection and have identified any uncertainty concerning exact wording.

I am not a data-protection lawyer. I used pre-structured legal wording below because the relevant law and technical processing are complex. I have personally read and reviewed the requests, selected them because they reflect my concerns and intended outcome, and adopt them as my own.

I distinguish between:

1. X’s platform-level desire to determine whether a live human is present; and
2. the authentication reasonably necessary to establish that I am the data subject exercising GDPR rights.

My personal statement explains what the procedure displayed to me, whether biometric processing was mentioned, what evidence I preserved, and why I will not or cannot complete it.

Where X would rely upon consent for camera-based, liveness, or biometric processing, I expressly withhold that consent. I will not complete the disputed human-presence procedure.

I am not requesting restoration of ordinary account access as a substitute for responding to this statutory request.

1. Alternative authentication and Article 12(6)

In light of the circumstances described in my personal statement, please provide a proportionate alternative method for authenticating this request that does not require:

• a smartphone or mobile application;
• an Apple or Google account;
• participation in an app-store ecosystem;
• camera, hand, face, movement, liveness, or biometric processing; or
• completion of X’s platform-level human-verification challenge.

I am willing to authenticate through reasonable account-related methods, including:

• confirmation through the registered email address;
• a one-time code sent to that address;
• existing password or account-recovery information;
• relevant historical account information; or
• another browser-based, non-biometric method.

Article 12(6) GDPR permits additional information to be requested where there are reasonable doubts concerning the identity of the person making the request. It does not make an unrelated platform challenge the default authentication mechanism for exercising statutory rights.

I am willing to authenticate through proportionate account-linked information. I will not provide a government identity document, biometric verification, or another intrusive identifier unless X first:

• identifies an account-specific reasonable doubt concerning my identity;
• explains why the requested measure is necessary, suitable, and proportionate;
• explains why the registered email address and existing account credentials are insufficient; and
• explains why a less intrusive method cannot resolve the doubt.

If X concludes that an identity document is genuinely necessary, please:

• identify the particular fields required;
• explain which fields may be redacted;
• provide a secure submission method;
• state how the document will be protected, retained, and deleted; and
• explain how the document would establish control of a pseudonymous account that may not contain the document holder’s legal name.

To the extent X might seek to rely on Article 11(2) GDPR, X has not demonstrated that it is not in a position to identify the relevant data subject or personal data. The account handle, registered email address, existing account identifiers, and this communication from the registered address identify the relevant account and associated data.

If X contends otherwise, please specify the technical or organisational reason why those identifiers do not permit identification.

X’s documented password-based procedure

On 19 August 2026, X’s official data-access help page instructed a user logged into X on the web to:

1. open the main navigation menu;
2. enter the privacy and account settings;
3. choose the account section;
4. select the account-archive download function; and
5. confirm the account password and request the archive.

The page expressly stated:

>“Confirm your password, then select Request archive.”

X therefore publicly identified an authenticated web session followed by password confirmation as its ordinary procedure for obtaining an account archive.

As described in my personal statement, X prevented me from reaching or using that documented procedure. In a browser context that X associated with my account, visiting x.com or attempting to navigate to the relevant account settings instead produced the disputed human-verification challenge. I could not reach the password-confirmation step identified in X’s own instructions.

If X considers its documented password-based procedure insufficient in my individual case, please explain:

1. what account-specific reasonable doubt made it insufficient;
2. why password confirmation combined with confirmation through the registered email address would not resolve that doubt;
3. why presenting a live hand or other human movement would resolve an identity doubt that account-linked credentials would not;
4. why access to X’s documented privacy mechanism was blocked rather than supplemented with proportionate authentication;
5. whether that interception was selected automatically and which personal data, scores, or account classifications caused it; and
6. what non-camera and non-biometric alternative X now provides.

A platform-security restriction may explain why X wishes to challenge ordinary account use. It does not, without further justification, explain why X prevents the data subject from using its documented privacy procedure or why a human-presence challenge must also serve as authentication for a GDPR request.

If X nevertheless considers the mobile camera procedure necessary, please explain:

1. the concrete basis for any reasonable doubt concerning my identity;
2. the account-specific facts or signals producing that doubt;
3. whether that assessment was made automatically, manually, or through a combination of both;
4. why a human-presence test is relevant to establishing that I control this particular account;
5. how showing a live hand establishes account ownership or data-subject identity;
6. whether the procedure compares the submitted data with any previously held reference data;
7. why confirmation through the registered email address and existing credentials is insufficient;
8. what additional information X considers necessary and why each item is necessary;
9. why less intrusive alternatives were rejected; and
10. the purposes, legal bases, recipients, processors, and retention periods associated with the requested procedure.

The factual basis available to X for identifying and authenticating this request consists of my personal statement, the account handle and registered email address, submission from the registered communication channel, existing account credentials, and my willingness to complete proportionate account-linked authentication.

If X considers those facts insufficient, please identify the particular inconsistency or missing account-linked information that creates reasonable doubt concerning my identity.

I am not requesting disclosure of source code, security keys, exploitable detection rules, or information that would enable circumvention of X’s security systems.

2. Article 15 access request

Because X’s documented self-service data-access route was made inaccessible in the circumstances described above, this Article 15 request is submitted directly to X.

Referring me back to the inaccessible settings page or disputed human-verification challenge would not provide access to the requested personal data.

Under Article 15 GDPR, please confirm whether X processes personal data concerning me and provide a copy of that data as it existed when this request was received, including, where applicable:

• profile, account-registration, and account-status data;
• posts, drafts, media, interactions, and communications concerning me;
• login, session, IP-address, browser, device, and security-event data;
• location data and inferred location;
• advertising profiles, interests, audience classifications, and other inferences;
• data used to associate this account with other accounts, devices, persons, or identifiers;
• reports, moderation records, internal annotations, enforcement records, and appeal records;
• spam, automation, fraud, abuse, authenticity, trust, safety, integrity, or risk scores concerning the account or me;
• signals and personal data used to select, impose, maintain, or review the present restriction;
• outputs, flags, classifications, recommendations, or decisions produced by automated systems;
• records and telemetry associated with the QR code, mobile-app requirement, human-verification procedure, or any attempted verification session; and
• support, privacy, authentication, and account-recovery records.

For each relevant processing activity, please provide:

• its purpose and legal basis;
• the categories and sources of personal data;
• applicable retention periods or the criteria used to determine them;
• recipients or categories of recipients;
• the identity of processors where relevant;
• transfers outside the EEA and the applicable safeguards; and
• where legally required and available, the identities of the actual recipients to whom my personal data has been disclosed.

Where X cannot provide the identity of an actual recipient, please explain whether identification is impossible or whether X relies on another specific limitation. See CJEU, Case C‑154/21, RW v Österreichische Post.

If X relies on trade secrets, intellectual property, platform security, or the rights of others to withhold information, please apply any limitation only to the information genuinely requiring protection. Please provide the remaining personal data through proportionate measures such as redaction, separation, or an intelligible description.

A blanket refusal to disclose personal scores, classifications, inputs, outputs, or decision records is not justified merely because the systems producing them are proprietary.

Where Article 15(1)(h) applies, I request a concise and intelligible explanation of the procedure and principles actually applied, the personal data used, and how those data influenced the result.

I am not asking for source code or a complex mathematical formula. See CJEU, Case C‑203/22, Dun & Bradstreet Austria.

3. Human-verification and possible biometric processing

The procedure described in my personal statement required or proposed camera-based human or liveness verification and may also have involved, or been represented as involving, biometric processing.

Please correct any factual misunderstanding in my account and state precisely:

• what images, video, physical characteristics, movements, behavioural signals, or associated metadata are collected;
• whether raw images or video leave the device;
• whether liveness features, biometric features, embeddings, vectors, templates, or comparable representations are generated;
• whether any data are used to identify me uniquely or compared with reference data;
• whether processing occurs locally, by X, or by a third-party provider;
• the identity of relevant processors and recipients;
• the purposes and Article 6 legal basis for each processing operation;
• whether X considers Article 9 GDPR applicable and, if so, the Article 9(2) condition relied upon;
• where consent is relied upon, how refusal can be exercised without losing access to statutory privacy rights;
• the applicable retention and deletion periods; and
• whether the information is reused for fraud prevention, model training, account linking, advertising, profiling, or any other secondary purpose.

If the procedure merely determines that some live human is present, please explain why passing it is necessary to authenticate the particular data subject making this request.

If it is used to identify or authenticate me uniquely, please explain:

• how that identification occurs;
• what reference data are used;
• where those reference data originated;
• why this purpose is compatible with their original collection;
• the applicable Articles 6 and 9 legal bases; and
• why the processing is necessary and proportionate.

If X does not consider the information to be biometric data within Article 4(14) GDPR, please identify the precise data and processing involved and explain their purpose, necessity, proportionality, and legal basis without relying solely on a change of terminology.

Where my personal statement says that I preserved evidence, I can provide relevant copies if necessary, subject to redaction of QR codes, session identifiers, or unrelated information.

Please identify what evidence is required and provide an appropriate secure submission method.

4. Restriction, preservation, and subsequent erasure

To the extent X processes personal data classifying me or my account as automated, inauthentic, abusive, suspicious, or otherwise requiring this challenge, I contest the accuracy of those personal data and inferences.

I request restriction for the period necessary to verify their accuracy under Article 18(1)(a) GDPR.

I contend that the disputed verification-related processing is unlawful. Pending completion of my access request and any resulting complaint or legal claim, I oppose immediate erasure of the responsive records and request restriction instead under Article 18(1)(b).

This temporary request does not withdraw my request for erasure after the access and transparency response has been provided.

If X would otherwise delete relevant personal data that it no longer requires for its own processing purposes, I require those data for the establishment, exercise, or defence of legal claims and request restriction under Article 18(1)(c).

To the extent the disputed processing is based on Article 6(1)(e) or 6(1)(f), I also request restriction under Article 18(1)(d) while X verifies whether its grounds override my Article 21 objection.

Pending completion of this request, please:

• prevent further unnecessary public availability or dissemination of my account data;
• mark and restrict the relevant personal data in accordance with Article 18;
• preserve a copy sufficient to fulfil this access request as it stood when received;
• refrain from deleting short-lived logs or decision records where doing so would frustrate the pending access request; and
• otherwise process restricted data only in accordance with Article 18(2).

This is not a request for indefinite retention.

After X has supplied the requested access and transparency information, I request permanent deactivation of the account and erasure of the associated personal data under Article 17 GDPR, where applicable, including:

• Article 17(1)(a), where data are no longer necessary;
• Article 17(1)(b), to the extent processing depends on consent that I withdraw;
• Article 17(1)(c), following my Article 21 objection where no overriding legitimate grounds exist; and
• Article 17(1)(d), to the extent processing is unlawful.

Erasing or deactivating the account does not retrospectively satisfy the access request. Please provide the Article 15 response and other requested transparency information before, or at the same time as, final confirmation of erasure.

If X retains particular data under Article 17(3) or another legal obligation, please identify the relevant categories, specific legal basis, purpose, and retention period.

Please also provide the information required by Article 19 regarding recipients notified of rectification, restriction, or erasure, where applicable.

5. Objection and consent

Under Article 21 GDPR, I object to processing based on Article 6(1)(e) or 6(1)(f) insofar as it concerns:

• maintenance of the account restriction;
• profiling or classification associated with that restriction;
• human-verification or liveness processing;
• account linking;
• advertising or behavioural profiling; and
• continued retention beyond what is necessary to resolve this request and comply with law.

Please identify the processing to which X considers Article 21 applicable and any compelling legitimate grounds on which it relies to continue that processing.

I withhold consent to the proposed camera, liveness, or biometric procedure. To the extent X claims that I previously consented to any such processing, I withdraw that consent under Article 7(3) GDPR.

My refusal to perform a platform human-presence challenge is not a withdrawal of this request and should not be treated as abandonment of it.

6. Automated processing and DSA information

Please state whether the restriction, its continuation, or the selection of this verification procedure resulted solely from automated processing, including profiling.

If X considers such processing to produce legal or similarly significant effects concerning me within Article 22 GDPR, please provide:

• the applicable Article 22 basis;
• meaningful information about the logic involved;
• the personal data and principal factors used;
• the significance and envisaged consequences;
• an opportunity to obtain human intervention;
• an opportunity to express my position; and
• a method for contesting the decision that does not require completing the disputed procedure.

Regardless of whether Article 22 applies, the relevant personal inputs, scores, classifications, outputs, and decision records remain within the scope of the Article 15 request where they constitute personal data concerning me.

To the extent the restriction constitutes a decision covered by Articles 17 and 20 of the Digital Services Act, please provide:

• the applicable statement of reasons;
• whether the decision concerns alleged illegal content, incompatibility with X’s terms, manipulation, spam, inauthenticity, or another ground;
• the facts and circumstances relied upon;
• whether automated means were used and, if so, how;
• the territorial and temporal scope of the restriction; and
• access to an effective and easily accessible internal complaint mechanism that does not require the disputed mobile procedure.

If X considers Articles 17 or 20 DSA inapplicable, please state the basis for that position.

7. Individual character, response period, and format

This is one consolidated request concerning one specific account. I have combined the related questions to make the request easier to process and to avoid repetitive correspondence.

The individual facts, evidence, concerns, and intended outcome underlying this request are set out in my personal statement.

The remaining legal wording is structured because I am not a legal specialist and needed assistance expressing the rights potentially applicable to those facts. I personally reviewed and adopted the requests before sending them.

Their individual character therefore does not depend on their wording being unique. It is evidenced by:

• my personal statement;
• my unique account handle and registered email address;
• submission through the account’s registered communication channel;
• my selected outcome;
• my willingness to authenticate proportionately;
• my intention to review and respond to X’s answer; and
• my willingness to pursue the available remedies if the response is absent or inadequate.

Similar wording or awareness of other affected users does not remove the personal facts, purpose, or consequences of this request.

If X considers any part of this request manifestly unfounded or excessive under Article 12(5), please identify the concrete characteristics of my request supporting that conclusion and provide the reasons and remedy information required by Article 12(4).

The existence or volume of requests from other data subjects does not, by itself, establish that this individual request is unfounded or excessive. X bears the burden of demonstrating such a conclusion.

Please acknowledge receipt and provide a reference or ticket number.

I expect a substantive response without undue delay and within one month of receipt, subject to any extension permitted by Article 12(3).

If an extension is necessary, please notify me within the initial one-month period and state the reasons.

If X has reasonable doubts about my identity, please identify them promptly and request only the information necessary and proportionate to resolve them. Merely redirecting me to the disputed platform challenge should not be treated as a substantive response to this request.

If X refuses or limits any part of the request, please identify:

• the particular request or data category affected;
• the legal basis for the refusal or limitation;
• the factual reasons supporting it; and
• the available supervisory-authority and judicial remedies.

Any justified limitation should not prevent X from responding to the remainder.

Please provide the response and personal data electronically, in a permanent and commonly used electronic format, to the registered email address from which this request was sent.

Yours faithfully,

NAME OR PSEUDONYM:
X HANDLE:
REGISTERED EMAIL:
COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE:
DATE:

END OF EMAIL TEMPLATE

Step 4: Save everything

After submitting the request:

1. Save the final text exactly as sent.
2. Save the confirmation, ticket number, email headers, or postal tracking.
3. Record the date X received it.
4. Save screenshots of the restriction and any inaccessible privacy form.
5. Save the dated copy of X’s data-access instructions.
6. Save every response from X.
7. Do not repeatedly send the same request while the first one is pending.
8. Record when the initial one-month response period ends.

If X asks for additional identification, ask what specific doubt it is trying to resolve and why the requested information is necessary. Do not casually send an unredacted identity document by ordinary email.

If X does not act, gives no adequate reason for refusing, sends you back to the same challenge, or provides an incomplete response, you can complain to your national data-protection authority under Article 77 GDPR.

Include:

• your personal statement;
• the complete request;
• proof that X received it;
• screenshots of the challenge;
• the dated X help-page evidence;
• X’s response or evidence that it did not respond; and
• a short explanation of what remains unresolved.

I'm fed up with this bullshit. If you're writing hate speech or harassing users on the site, X will just send you back with slap on the wrist, but if legitimate user is falsely flagged for inauthentic behavior, they get pernament suspension with no option to meaningfully argue their case.

The fact that this site treats bots as more urgent issue than hate speech - and while it fails even at that with porn bots being rampant - is just a statement to what kind of narcisistic vermins Elon and Bier are.

I'm trying to appeal my account suspension, but every single time I hit submit (I’ve tried twice so far), I get automatically denied by a bot within seconds.

Because of this broken loop, I decided to check out X's profile on the Better Business Bureau (BBB) website, and the warning notice on their page explains exactly what is going on. Here is what it says

"BBB files indicate that X Corp has a pattern of complaints concerning account suspensions, automated appeal systems, customer support accessibility, billing disputes, and account recovery issues. In May 2026, BBB submitted a written request to the company encouraging it to address the pattern of complaints identified in BBB’s file. As of May 29, 2026, BBB has not received a response from X Corp."

To make things even worse, the page explicitly notes a failure to respond to 5,833 complaints filed against the business.
It is completely insane that they have an absolute 'F' rating and are flat-out ignoring thousands of consumer complaints while their automated bots run wild and lock real people out of their accounts. Is anyone else hitting this exact same instant rejection wall right now? How are we supposed to get a human reviewer when the entire system is entirely ghosting everyone?

Was browsing X and then suddenly a pop up came out said i needed a phone to scan my hand or face to prove im human. I was like f this shit im just gonna scan my palm and then delete my account. I didn't think much off it and just scanned my palm quickly because no way am i scanning my face. I was thinking what can they do with my palm just by scanning since im not touching anything with it so i just did it. Afterwards i just felt abit uneasy. Like 'what did i just do?'

Yes before u call me stupid and all that, i just didn't wan't my X account to just be sitting there with me being locked out, so i only did it just to delete it afterwards.

What are your guys worst case scenario conspriacy theories about this? Im just a bit paranoid right now, but there was no way to delete the account if i didn't do it...

I’m looking for advice because I honestly don’t know what else to do.

On August 8, my X account was suspended without any clear explanation. I did not receive any email from X explaining the reason for the suspension, what specific post or behavior allegedly violated the rules, or how I could properly appeal it.

After appealing, my account was reinstated later that day. However, on August 9, it was suspended again. So, in practice, my account was suspended, reinstated, and then suspended again within about 24–48 hours, with no proper explanation and no email from support.

I am an X Premium subscriber, and I have also verified my identity with an official ID. I am a real person, not a bot, not a fake account, and I do not use automation or spam tools.

I believe my account may have been targeted by mass reports from users who were harassing me and trying to trigger X’s anti-spam or anti-bot systems. I had received repeated personal attacks and harassment before the suspension, so the timing looks very suspicious to me.

The most frustrating part is the lack of transparency. I have not been told what I supposedly did wrong, I have not received any email with the reason for the ban, and I have no clear way to speak with a human operator.

Has anyone experienced something similar?

Is there any reliable way to contact X support and request a real manual review by a human agent, especially as a Premium and ID-verified user?

I’m not posting my handle, links, or the accounts involved because I don’t want to start drama here. I’m just trying to understand what options I have and how to get an actual explanation from X.

Thanks in advance for any advice.