X Took Down Thousands of Fake Accounts Before the Election
X removed more than 13,000 accounts tied to three suspected foreign efforts to influence US political debate, announcing the action in a post on Wednesday evening ahead of the US midterm elections on November 3. The Register
The company linked the three networks to Iran, Russia and China. It said they used fake accounts that hide who really runs them to post and share political messages aimed at candidates and public figures on both sides. It was a bit like hiring a fake crowd to cheer and boo.
X did not publicly explain what evidence tied the networks to those countries.
X has a Civic Integrity policy that covers false information about how, when and where to vote, and posts that try to stop people from voting. Reports made under that policy can lead to Community Notes, short notes from readers that add background to a post, which X says it uses along with normal moderation.
For context on what matters here, the pattern stands out more than the number. Three separate sources. One shared method. Messages aimed across the political spectrum, not just at one side. That points to stirring division as the goal, not helping one campaign. It also makes cleanup harder, because the same method can send opposite messages to different groups at once.
In my view, the gap between action and explanation is the issue to watch. Removal stops those accounts from posting again. Without public clues or methods, outside experts cannot check the claims, measure mistakes, or tell if the same groups return with new accounts. Companies have reason to keep some methods secret. Even so, asking people to accept the claim without evidence requires trust when trust about election news is weak.
The broader context here is the mix of removal and Community Notes. X presents them as tools that work together, with reports feeding both Notes and moderation. In theory that gives two paths, one to remove fake networks and one to add background to disputed claims. The test is how both work before an election, when posts pile up and voters need simple facts about voting.
Worth flagging as November 3 nears, the rules are broad. They cover not only false voting details, but also posts that discourage voting. That second part will be hard to judge. Strong opinions, discouragement stated as a view, and copied claims can sit close to that line. How X draws the line will shape how users and researchers see the policy.
In my view, over time, clearing out fake networks before voting protects something simple. Clear voting facts and real debate do not create agreement. They do help voters decide for themselves.
