Pearson Bonnie

@soham0yt I believe this decision was made in error. Please recheck the content carefully.

@soham0yt I respectfully ask for a re-evaluation of this decision, as I believe no violation of community guidelines occurred.

@Officialtunech2 I believe this decision was made in error. Please recheck the content carefully.

A constructive conversation about engagement on X : One of the most controversial aspects of X’s current system is the perception that engagement from verified users carries significantly more weight than engagement from unverified users. While I understand the business rationale behind creation incentives for verification, it raises an important question about fairness and the value of the broader community. Every user on X contributes to the platform. Whether verified or unverified, users spend time, attention, data, bandwidth, and often create content that helps keep conversations alive. Engagement is engagement. A like, reply, repost or quote from an unverified user still reflects genuine interest and participations. When a system appears to prioritise only verified engagement, it can create the impression that two classes of users exit: those who intersections matters and those whose interactions are largely invisible. The risks discouraging participation from a significant portion of the platform’s user base. If X’s long-term vision is to make verification the defining fa tor in visibility and engagement, then perhaps the platform should be more explicit about that model. One logical approach would be to create a clearer boundaries where verified accounts primarily interact with verified audiences and unverified accounts operate within their own ecosystem. While such a model would have its own drawbacks, it would at least be transparent and consistent. However, a healthier alternative may be to ensure all authentic engagement contributes meaningfully to reach and discovery, while verification continues to provide benefits related to identity, security, premium features, and reduced spam. This would preserve incentives for verification without diminishing the value of the wider community. The strength of ay social platform comes from its network effects. Verified users, unverified users, creators, casual readers, and active participants all contributes to that ecosystem. A balances system should recognizes that value rather than creating the perception that only one group’s engagement truly counts. Constructive criticism is not opposition. Many users simply awa t a platform where participation feels meaningful regardless of subscription status, while still supporting the company’s need to generate revenue and combat abuse.

@aydahare @wiildfiress I believe this decision was made in error. Please recheck the content carefully.

@wiildfiress I'm sorry this is happening to you! like yes, the wording wasn't great, but that's why we should give the benefit of the doubt in this kind of situation, without harassing based on pure assumption thank you for clarifying your intentions! i hope you are okay❤️‍🩹

i want to clarify - i did not set out to draw rhaelya. my intention was to draw ELIA in the moment rhaegar passes her with the winter roses and HER reaction to it

@BodmaxTips I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. I believe this was a misunderstanding and kindly request a review.

I once got this mail after my first appeal A lot of people have been getting this reply and wants to give up My 10 kobo advice, don't give up, appeal again and ensure you are not violating any of monetization rules during the appeal process and ensure strict compliance going forward if your account is reinstated