‘More proof’: Internet sleuths think they’ve revealed Elon Musk’s alternative account

The mystery surrounding Adrian Dittmann, an X (formerly Twitter) account that some users believe is probably Elon Musk’s burner account, got a nice boost this weekend during heated debates about H-1B visas on the platform.

Dittmann, who supposedly created his account in July 2021 and has amassed 171,000 followers, vigorously defended Musk’s stance on immigration policy. The account’s over-the-top advocacy has caught the attention of other X users doubling-timing as web sleuths, including author Pekka Kallioniemi, noting peculiar similarities in speech patterns, tense irregularities, and vocabulary/language choices between Dittmann and Musk.

The speculation centers on a series of apparently like-for-like verbal slips. During a May message, Dittmann seemed to momentarily break character, referring to himself when discussing Musk’s critics. In another instance, while discussing rocket fuel specifications, Dittmann used “I am using” rather than speaking in third person about Musk’s enterprises. So yeah, it’s probably Musk, but why?

These incidents align with more typical-than-we-think broader patterns in modern digital spaces, where powerful figures like Musk feel the need to employ a burner to help shape a public perception or defend themselves out of their messiah complexes. Such practices mirror traditional propaganda techniques used to build personality cults, where leaders cultivate an idealized public image through carefully controlled messaging—the usual stuff we’ve seen with Donald Trump and other actual and wannabe dictators with wildly inflated egos.

In Dittmann’s case, the account presents a fierce defender of Musk’s positions while maintaining a small amount of necessary plausible deniability through consistent denials of any connection to the billionaire. I mean, how would that look if Musk was found to have a burner for a platform he owns? The account follows a curated list of 1,071 profiles, including notable figures like Senator Bernie Sanders and various news aggregators, lending it an air of authenticity. But of course, several questions remain: What does Dittmann actually do? Why is he such a heavy pro-Musk advocate? Why won’t he just show himself and end the rumors? Why does he appear only to have an existence on X?

Some observers remain unconvinced of the connection. Political commentator Brian Krassenstein claims to have spoken with both Musk and Dittmann separately, dismissing the theory as conspiracy thinking. (One wild thought is that he’s met Musk and Dittmann because he himself is Dittmann or one of the handlers of the account—which could account for the occasional blips in writing tenses.)

Whether Dittmann is real or is Musk or someone connected, the situation reflects ongoing questions about authenticity and influence in an increasingly toxic cesspool of social media spaces. The line between genuine interaction with real people and agenda-specific messaging has grown increasingly blurred. The methods may have evolved in an era where online presence shapes public opinion, but it’s ultimately more of the same shenanigans. If it is Musk under the Dittmann mask, like a Scooby-Doo villain, the fact that he actually owns and runs a propaganda machine doesn’t hurt his efforts.