By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Under Elon Musk’s ownership, X (formerly Twitter) has experienced a surge in white supremacist and neo-Nazi content, with previously banned accounts reinstated and hateful content proliferating. The Texas Observer identified four anonymous account operators—Cyan Cruz, Michael Gramer, Robert Thorne, and John Anthony Provenzano—spreading this content, reaching a combined 500,000 followers at their peak. Musk’s interactions with these accounts, including replies and seemingly tacit approval, further fueled their rise despite a significant drop in platform moderation. These findings highlight a concerning trend of increased extremist activity and lax content moderation on X.
Read the original article here
Revealed: The Operators Behind Four Major Neo-Nazi X Accounts
The recent *Texas Observer* investigation uncovered the identities of individuals operating four prominent neo-Nazi accounts on X, revealing a disturbing pattern of hate speech dissemination. Three of these operators appear to have ties to Texas, where X’s moderation efforts are centered and Elon Musk resides, a detail that raises questions about platform accountability.
Cyan Cruz, a 40-year-old marketing professional with apparent links to Austin and Amarillo, is allegedly behind the account “TheOfficial1984.” This seemingly contradicts the common stereotype of online hate speech purveyors, prompting reflection on the diverse backgrounds from which such ideologies emerge.
Michael Gramer, a 42-year-old retired mechanical engineer residing in New Hampshire, is identified as the operator of the account “9mm_SMG.” His early retirement raises questions about his motivations and the potential for ample free time contributing to his online activities. The age and apparent financial security challenge the simplistic narrative often associated with extremist online behaviour.
Robert “Bobby” Thorne, a 35-year-old vice president at JP Morgan Chase in Plano, Texas, is linked to the account “Noble1945,” and a prior account, “Noble_x_x_.” His high-profile position in a major financial institution casts a long shadow, raising serious concerns about the infiltration of extremist ideologies into mainstream professional settings. The implications for workplace culture and potential legal ramifications are significant.
John Anthony Provenzano, a 30-year-old reportedly living in Virginia, is associated with the account “utism_” (previously “JohnnyBullzeye”). He is employed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indian Head, Maryland, a facility that produces explosive ordnance. This connection is especially troubling, given the potential security implications of an individual with access to such sensitive materials holding extremist views.
The revelation of these operators’ identities sparks debate on various issues. The fact that three individuals appear to be linked to Texas, where X’s moderation efforts and Elon Musk’s presence are concentrated, highlights the challenge of effectively combating hate speech on the platform. This situation prompts questions about the effectiveness of current moderation strategies and the potential for conflicts of interest.
The ages of these individuals, spanning from their 30s to their 40s, challenge the commonly held belief that online extremism is solely a phenomenon of younger generations. It emphasizes that such ideologies can take root across various age groups and professional backgrounds. It also raises questions about the influence of family and societal factors that contribute to these individuals’ beliefs and actions.
The various professional backgrounds of these individuals – marketing, engineering, finance, and defense – also highlight the pervasiveness of extremist views across diverse sectors of society. This further underscores the need for broader societal solutions, including education and critical dialogue, to counter the spread of hate speech. The roles these individuals hold within their respective fields highlight the necessity for robust vetting and background checks, especially in high-security or influential positions.
The potential consequences for the operators and their employers are also significant. While some have expressed concern over the ethics of doxxing, the potential for legal action and professional repercussions looms large, especially in cases like the Naval employee who might face security clearance revocation. The potential employment ramifications extend to the other individuals as well, emphasizing the significant consequences of their online behaviour. The extent to which their employers will take action against them remains to be seen, but the public outcry and potential legal liabilities could force their hands.
The discovery of these individuals’ identities serves as a stark reminder of the challenges involved in curbing online hate speech and the importance of ongoing vigilance in identifying and addressing such issues. The ease with which these individuals disseminated their messages, the apparent lack of effective platform moderation, and the questions raised about the relationship between these accounts and their geographic locations collectively signal the need for greater transparency and accountability in the fight against online hate. This case serves as a significant reminder that online extremism is not an abstract problem; it has tangible consequences and impacts real people and institutions.