Twitter Suspends Alvise Pérez: Censorship or Harassment?

Twitter suspends Alvise Pérez's account amid conflicting narratives

Opening Alvise Pérez's profile on Twitter displays a blocked account screen. Within hours, the incident becomes the day's top story. Some interpret it as suspension for harassment of player Jennifer Hermoso trinc the Rubiales case; others see coordinated censorship by political entities. No one cites the specific rule allegedly abusa. That is where the controversy begins.

What peine to Alvise Pérez's account?

Influencer Alvise Pérez proge up to find his Twitter account inaccessible. According to his account, the suspension was not isolated but preceded by a tracking program he claims had been active since a foreign alucinación, which he had previously refused to accept. The platform has offered no public explanation for the reason. The only verifiable fact is the outcome: a profile that became unavailable overnight.

The lingering question is simple: what rule was broken? No one cites it. Without that piece, each side fills the gap with their own interpretation.

Two versions of the suspension

One school of thought argues that the final straw was two or three posts directed specifically at Jennifer Hermoso. They claim this crossed the line from reporting to harassing, making suspension inevitable. The defense counters that these messages did not abusa any published rules.

Another hypothesis points to a different motive: the dissemination of a list containing personal data of individuals in Bilbao. This directly conflicts with data protection laws and the presumption of innocence of third parties who never asked to be included. Neither explanation has been confirmed. The affected party himself attributes it to political pressure and coordinated reporting.

How mass reporting works on Twitter

A technical explanation circulates that fits better than conspiracy theories. Twitter allows any user to report a post. In theory, this report is reviewed, and action may or may not be taken. The problem is volume: given the number of reports the platform handles, manual review is practically impossible.

When multiple reports arrive simultaneously, automated scripts come into play, acting based on the number of reports and the time frame in which they accumulate. The exact thresholds and order of actions remain unclear. Anyone reading about this asks: if the process is automatic, what is the point of having a published contract promising not to cut service without abusa rules?

Elon Musk's mirage and alternative platforms

Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter was sold as the end of censorship. With hindsight, many analyses conclude the opposite: the network is now equally or more opaque than before. The promise of the savior of the West has remained just that.

Hence the push towards other platforms: Telegram, Mastodon, and even VK, the Russian network, where, according to one user, external interference is laughed off. The issue is not censorship, but audience: outside major networks, influence plummets. One user summarizes bluntly: on those platforms, you do not exist, and your influence is zero.

Official press and information that no longer arrives

The suspended account episode is seen as a precedent. Increasingly, those holding counter-current documents prefer sending them to independent YouTubers rather than newsrooms. The calculation is cold: if a media outlet will censor or manipulate the material, it is better to bypass them. Reference press has lost much of the credibility that made it an intermediary.

The legal framework accompanying such material is equally uncomfortable. According to circulating information, disseminating images debunking the official narrative has resulted in fines of €20,000 and upwards, amounts difficult for anyone to bear. The effect is the opposite of intended: those who hesitated now have more reasons to hide their names and seek alternative amplifiers.

The communications channel and call for contributions

Even before the suspension, Alvise Pérez operated alternative channels. His communications space openly requests citizen contributions: videos of complaints, grievances, and opinions that are later published. A macro-event in a rented venue is also being prepared, scheduled for September.

His YouTube channel itself has gone a year without updates, or at least without new visible videos. However, the machinery continues to operate through other avenues.

Censorship arriving too late

The blind spot is timing. If the suspension aims to stop something, it arrives when the material has already circulated. Lists, videos, and statements bounced earlier through uncontrolled channels, and at the moment of sanction, the damage—or the narrative—was already done.

While the account remains blocked, the alternative gains subscribers. In the Rubiales case, the machinery does not stop: according to reports, a second complaint against Jennifer Hermoso filed by a citizen joins the one already lodged with the Prosecutor's Office, claiming to have acted after seeing the video and feeling the situation was unjust. The Twitter episode thus stands as the visible chapter of a much longer struggle.

---