Twitter.com links are now redirecting to the x.com domain as Elon Musk gets closer to wiping out the Twitter brand name over a year and half after buying the company.
“All core systems are now on X.com,” Musk wrote in an X post today. X also displayed a message to users that said, “We are letting you know that we are changing our URL, but your privacy and data protection settings remain the same.”
Musk bought Twitter in October 2022 and turned it into X Corp. in April 2023, but the social network continued to use Twitter.com as its primary domain for more than another year. X.com links redirected to Twitter.com during that time.
There were still remnants of Twitter after today’s change. This morning, I noticed a support link took me to a help.twitter.com page. The link subsequently redirected to a help.x.com page after I sent a message to X’s public relations email, though the timing could be coincidence. After sending that message to [email protected], I got the standard auto-reply from [email protected], just as I have in the past.
You might still encounter Twitter links that don’t redirect to x.com, depending on which browser you use. The Verge said it is “seeing a mix of results depending upon browser choice and whether you’re logged in or not.”
I had no trouble accessing x.com on desktop browsers today. But in Safari on iPhone, I received error messages when trying to access either twitter.com or x.com without first logging in. I eventually succeeded in logging in and was able to view content, but I remained at twitter.com in the iPhone browser instead of being redirected to x.com.
This will presumably be sorted out, but the awkward Twitter-to-X transition has previously been accompanied by technical problems. In early April, Musk’s service started automatically changing “twitter.com” to “x.com” in links posted by users in the iOS app. But the automatic text replacement initially applied to any URL ending in “twitter.com” even if it wasn’t actually a twitter.com link, which meant that phishers could have taken advantage by registering misleading domain names.
A US judge has struck down a lawsuit brought by X against a nonprofit group that researched toxic content on the social media platform, finding the Elon Musk-owned company’s case appeared to be an attempt at “punishing” the group for exercising free speech.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate had sought to dismiss the case from X, which alleged the nonprofit unlawfully accessed and scraped X data for its studies. The CCDH found a rise in hate speech and misinformation on the platform. X had also alleged the group “cherry-picked” from posts on the platform to conduct a “scare campaign” to drive away advertisers, costing it tens of millions of dollars.
In a stinging ruling, US judge Charles Breyer in California granted the motion. “Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose. Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the defendants for their speech,” he wrote in the decision.
The judge found that on top of punishing the CCDH for a report criticizing the company, X appeared to have filed the suit “perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
The lawsuit is just one of several bitter disputes between Musk, a self-declared “free speech absolutist,” and civil rights groups and academics whose research argues the platform has not been adequately policed following the billionaire’s takeover in late 2022.
It comes as X’s revenue has fallen after brands pulled away over Musk’s decision to relax moderation on the platform. He, in turn, has lashed out at advertisers, saying last year that those who have left should “go fuck themselves” despite the company struggling financially.
CCDH chief executive Imran Ahmed said following the ruling: “The courts today have affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors that affect our kids, our democracy, and our fundamental human rights and civil liberties.”
He described the suit as “Elon Musk’s loud, hypocritical campaign of harassment, abuse, and lawfare designed to avoid taking responsibility for his own decisions.”
In a statement on X, the company said it disagreed with the court’s decisions and “plans to appeal.” Musk did not immediately comment on the case but last week wrote on the platform that the CCDH was a “truly evil organization that just wants to destroy the first amendment under the guise of doing good!”
Enlarge/ Elon Musk at the New York Times DealBook Summit on November 29, 2023, in New York City.
Getty Images | Michael Santiago
Twitter employees prevented Elon Musk from violating the company’s privacy settlement with the US government, according to Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan.
After Musk bought Twitter in late 2022, he gave Bari Weiss and other journalists access to company documents in the so-called “Twitter Files” incident. The access given to outside individuals raised concerns that Twitter (which is currently named X) violated a 2022 settlement with the FTC, which has requirements designed to prevent repeats of previous security failures.
Some of Twitter’s top privacy and security executives also resigned shortly after Musk’s purchase, citing concerns that Musk’s rapid changes could cause violations of the settlement.
FTC staff deposed former Twitter employees and “learned that the access provided to the third-party individuals turned out to be more limited than the individuals’ tweets and other public reporting had indicated,” Khan wrote in a letter sent today to US Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Khan’s letter said the access was limited because employees refused to comply with Musk’s demands:
The deposition testimony revealed that in early December 2022, Elon Musk had reportedly directed staff to grant an outside third-party individual “full access to everything at Twitter… No limits at all.” Consistent with Musk’s direction, the individual was initially assigned a company laptop and internal account, with the intent that the third-party individual be given “elevated privileges” beyond what an average company employee might have.
However, based on a concern that such an arrangement would risk exposing nonpublic user information in potential violation of the FTC’s Order, longtime information security employees at Twitter intervened and implemented safeguards to mitigate the risks. Ultimately the third-party individuals did not receive direct access to Twitter’s systems, but instead worked with other company employees who accessed the systems on the individuals’ behalf.
Khan: FTC “was right to be concerned”
Jordan is chair of the House Judiciary Committee and has criticized the investigation, claiming that “the FTC harassed Twitter in the wake of Mr. Musk’s acquisition.” Khan’s letter to Jordan today argues that the FTC investigation was justified.
“The FTC’s investigation confirmed that staff was right to be concerned, given that Twitter’s new CEO had directed employees to take actions that would have violated the FTC’s Order,” Khan wrote. “Once staff learned that the FTC’s Order had worked to ensure that Twitter employees took appropriate measures to protect consumers’ private information, compliance staff made no further inquiries to Twitter or anyone else concerning this issue.”
Khan also wrote that deep staff cuts following the Musk acquisition, and resignations of Twitter’s top privacy and compliance officials, meant that “there was no one left at the company responsible for interpreting and modifying data policies and practices to ensure Twitter was complying with the FTC’s Order to safeguard Americans’ personal data.” The letter continued:
During staff’s evaluation of the workforce reductions, one of the company’s recently departed lead privacy and security experts testified that Twitter Blue was being implemented too quickly so that the proper “security and privacy review was not conducted in accordance with the company’s process for software development.” Another expert testified that he had concerns about Mr. Musk’s “commitment to overall security and privacy of the organization.” Twitter, meanwhile, filed a motion seeking to eliminate the FTC Order that protected the privacy and security of Americans’ data. Fortunately for Twitter’s millions of users, that effort failed in court.
FTC still trying to depose Musk
While no violation was found in this case, the FTC isn’t done investigating. When contacted by Ars, an FTC spokesperson said the agency cannot rule out bringing lawsuits against Musk’s social network for violations of the settlement or US law.
“When we heard credible public reports of potential violations of protections for Twitter users’ data, we moved swiftly to investigate,” the FTC said in a statement today. “The order remains in place and the FTC continues to deploy the order’s tools to protect Twitter users’ data and ensure the company remains in compliance.”
The FTC also said it is continuing attempts to depose Musk. In July 2023, Musk’s X Corp. asked a federal court for an order that would terminate the settlement and prevent the FTC from deposing Musk. The court denied both requests in November. In a filing, US government lawyers said the FTC investigation had “revealed a chaotic environment at the company that raised serious questions about whether and how Musk and other leaders were ensuring X Corp.’s compliance with the 2022 Administrative Order.”
We contacted X today, but an auto-reply informed us that the company was busy and asked that we check back later.
A watchdog group’s investigation found that terrorist group Hezbollah and other US-sanctioned entities have accounts with paid checkmarks on X, the Elon Musk-owned social network that still resides at the twitter.com domain.
The Tech Transparency Project (TTP), a nonprofit that is critical of Big Tech companies, said in a report today that “X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, is providing premium, paid services to accounts for two leaders of a US-designated terrorist group and several other organizations sanctioned by the US government.”
After buying Twitter for $44 billion, Musk started charging users for checkmarks that were previously intended to verify that an account was notable and authentic. “Along with the checkmarks, which are intended to confer legitimacy, X promises various perks for premium accounts, including the ability to post longer text and videos and greater visibility for some posts,” the Tech Transparency Project report noted.
The Tech Transparency Project suggests that X may be violating US sanctions. “The accounts identified by TTP include two that apparently belong to the top leaders of Lebanon-based Hezbollah and others belonging to Iranian and Russian state-run media,” the report said. “The fact that X requires users to pay a monthly or annual fee for premium service suggests that X is engaging in financial transactions with these accounts, a potential violation of US sanctions.”
Some of the accounts were verified before Musk bought Twitter, but verification was a free service at the time. Musk’s decision to charge for checkmarks means that X is “providing a premium, paid service to sanctioned entities,” which may raise “new legal issues,” the Tech Transparency Project said.
Report details 28 checkmarked accounts
Musk’s X charges $1,000 a month for a Verified Organizations subscription and last month added a basic tier for $200 a month. For individuals, the X Premium tiers that come with checkmarks cost $8 or $16 a month.
It’s possible for US companies to receive a license from the government to engage in certain transactions with sanctioned entities, but it doesn’t seem likely that X has such a license. X’s rules explicitly prohibit users from purchasing X Premium “if you are a person with whom X is not permitted to have dealings under US and any other applicable economic sanctions and trade compliance law.”
In all, the Tech Transparency Project said it found 28 “verified” accounts tied to sanctioned individuals or entities. These include individuals and groups listed by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) as “Specially Designated Nationals.”
“Of the 28 X accounts identified by TTP, 18 show they got verified after April 1, 2023, when X began requiring accounts to subscribe to paid plans to get a checkmark. The other 10 were legacy verified accounts, which are required to pay for a subscription to retain their checkmarks,” the group wrote, adding that it “found advertising in the replies to posts in 19 of the 28 accounts.”
We contacted X today and will update this article if we get a comment. Our email to [email protected] triggered the standard auto-reply from [email protected] that says, “Busy now, please check back later.”
Update at 4: 28pm ET: After this article was published, X issued the following statement: “X has a robust and secure approach in place for our monetization features, adhering to legal obligations, along with independent screening by our payments providers. Several of the accounts listed in the Tech Transparency Report are not directly named on sanction lists, while some others may have visible account check marks without receiving any services that would be subject to sanctions. Our teams have reviewed the report and will take action if necessary. We’re always committed to ensuring that we maintain a safe, secure and compliant platform.”
Explicit, fake AI-generated images sexualizing Taylor Swift began circulating online this week, quickly sparking mass outrage that may finally force a mainstream reckoning with harms caused by spreading non-consensual deepfake pornography.
A wide variety of deepfakes targeting Swift began spreading on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, yesterday.
Ars found that some posts have been removed, while others remain online, as of this writing. One X post was viewed more than 45 million times over approximately 17 hours before it was removed, The Verge reported. Seemingly fueling more spread, X promoted these posts under the trending topic “Taylor Swift AI” in some regions, The Verge reported.
The Verge noted that since these images started spreading, “a deluge of new graphic fakes have since appeared.” According to Fast Company, these harmful images were posted on X but soon spread to other platforms, including Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram. Some platforms, like X, ban sharing of AI-generated images but seem to struggle with detecting banned content before it becomes widely viewed.
Ars’ AI reporter Benj Edwards warned in 2022 that AI image-generation technology was rapidly advancing, making it easy to train an AI model on just a handful of photos before it could be used to create fake but convincing images of that person in infinite quantities. That is seemingly what happened to Swift, and it’s currently unknown how many different non-consensual deepfakes have been generated or how widely those images have spread.
It’s also unknown what consequences have resulted from spreading the images. At least one verified X user had their account suspended after sharing fake images of Swift, The Verge reported, but Ars reviewed posts on X from Swift fans targeting others who allegedly shared images whose accounts remain active. Swift fans also have been uploading countless favorite photos of Swift to bury the harmful images and prevent them from appearing in various X searches. Her fans seem dedicated to reducing the spread however they can, with some posting different addresses, seemingly in attempts to dox an X user who, they’ve alleged, is the initial source of the images.
Neither X nor Swift’s team has yet commented on the deepfakes, but it seems clear that solving the problem will require more than just requesting removals from social media platforms. The AI model trained on Swift’s images is likely still out there, likely procured through one of the known websites that specialize in making fine-tuned celebrity AI models. As long as the model exists, anyone with access could crank out as many new images as they wanted, making it hard for even someone with Swift’s resources to make the problem go away for good.
In that way, Swift’s predicament might raise awareness of why creating and sharing non-consensual deepfake pornography is harmful, perhaps moving the culture away from persistent notions that nobody is harmed by non-consensual AI-generated fakes.
Swift’s plight could also inspire regulators to act faster to combat non-consensual deepfake porn. Last year, she inspired a Senate hearing after a Live Nation scandal frustrated her fans, triggering lawmakers’ antitrust concerns about the leading ticket seller, The New York Times reported.
Some lawmakers are already working to combat deepfake porn. Congressman Joe Morelle (D-NY) proposed a law criminalizing deepfake porn earlier this year after teen boys at a New Jersey high school used AI image generators to create and share non-consensual fake nude images of female classmates. Under that proposed law, anyone sharing deepfake pornography without an individual’s consent risks fines and being imprisoned for up to two years. Damages could go as high as $150,000 and imprisonment for as long as 10 years if sharing the images facilitates violence or impacts the proceedings of a government agency.
Elsewhere, the UK’s Online Safety Act restricts any illegal content from being shared on platforms, including deepfake pornography. It requires moderation, or companies will risk fines worth more than $20 million, or 10 percent of their global annual turnover, whichever amount is higher.
The UK law, however, is controversial because it requires companies to scan private messages for illegal content. That makes it practically impossible for platforms to provide end-to-end encryption, which the American Civil Liberties Union has described as vital for user privacy and security.
As regulators tangle with legal questions and social media users with moral ones, some AI image generators have moved to limit models from producing NSFW outputs. Some did this by removing some of the large quantity of sexualized images in the models’ training data, such as Stability AI, the company behind Stable Diffusion. Others, like Microsoft’s Bing image creator, make it easy for users to report NSFW outputs.
But so far, keeping up with reports of deepfake porn seems to fall squarely on social media platforms’ shoulders. Swift’s battle this week shows how unprepared even the biggest platforms currently are to handle blitzes of harmful images seemingly uploaded faster than they can be removed.
Fidelity’s latest valuation of its stake in X implies that Elon Musk’s social network is worth about 71.5 percent less than when Musk bought the company in October 2022.
Fidelity’s Blue Chip Growth Fund has a relatively small stake in X. A monthly update for the fund listed the value of its “X Holdings Corp.” stake at $5.6 million as of November 30, 2023. The fund’s share of X was originally worth $19.7 million but lost about two-thirds of its value by April 2023 and has dropped more modestly since then.
Fidelity cut its valuation of X by 10.7 percent in November, according to Axios. One question is whether Fidelity sold any of its stake during November, but the latest drop in value isn’t surprising given the recent Musk-related controversies that drove advertisers away from the platform.
“As of Oct. 30 the fund hadn’t sold any of its stake, but the monthly report with the updated valuation doesn’t disclose whether the size of the holding changed,” Bloomberg wrote. “Assuming the fund hasn’t reduced its holding in X, the latest report implies the value of the entire company has also fallen by 72 percent. Fidelity declined to comment.”
X’s ad woes hurt value
Based on the $44 billion that Musk paid for Twitter over a year ago, the drop in Fidelity’s valuation would make the company worth about $12.5 billion. X reportedly valued itself at about $19 billion in October, based on the value of stock grants to employees.
Since Musk took Twitter private, the company’s value and revenue are harder to determine from the outside. As Axios noted, “Fidelity doesn’t necessarily have much, if any, inside information on X’s financial performance, despite being a shareholder in the privately held business. Other shareholders may value their X stock differently.”
X’s finances were shaky enough at the end of October, the one-year anniversary of Musk’s purchase. Musk made things worse in mid-November when he posted a favorable response to an antisemitic tweet. He addressed the antisemitism controversy in a public interview on November 29, telling businesses that pulled advertising from X to “go fuck yourself.”
X has had trouble retaining advertisers throughout Musk’s tenure, due largely to his approach to content moderation. Musk eliminated most of the company’s staff shortly after becoming its owner.
X loses bid to block California law
X is dealing with new regulations on content moderation, both in Europe and the US. Musk’s company sued California in September in an attempt to block the state’s content-moderation law but last week lost a key ruling in the court case.
On Thursday, US District Judge William Shubb denied X’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked enforcement of the California content-moderation law. The state law requires companies to file two reports each year with terms of service and detailed descriptions of content-moderation practices.
Shubb rejected X’s claim that the law violates the First Amendment. “While the reporting requirement does appear to place a substantial compliance burden on social medial companies, it does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law,” Shubb wrote.
The judge agreed with California that there is “a substantial government interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and practices so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information.”
Enlarge/ Elon Musk speaks at the Atreju political convention organized by Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) on December 15, 2023 in Rome, Italy.
Getty Images | Antonio Masiello
Elon Musk’s ownership of Twitter, now called X, began with a lawsuit. When Musk tried to break a $44 billion merger agreement, Twitter filed a lawsuit that gave Musk no choice but to complete the deal.
In the year-plus since Musk bought the company, he’s been the defendant and plaintiff in many more lawsuits involving Twitter and X Corp. As 2023 comes to a close, this article rounds up a selection of notable lawsuits involving the Musk-led social network and provides updates on the status of the cases.
Musk sues Twitter law firm
Musk seemingly held a grudge against the law firm that helped Twitter force Musk to complete the merger. In July, X Corp. sued Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in an attempt to claw back the $90 million that Twitter paid the firm before Musk completed the acquisition.
Most of that money was paid to Wachtell hours before the merger closed. X’s lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court claimed that “Wachtell arranged to effectively line its pockets with funds from the company cash register while the keys were being handed over to the Musk Parties.”
Wachtell sought to move the dispute into arbitration, pointing out that the contract between itself and Twitter contained a binding arbitration clause. In October, the court granted Wachtell’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the lawsuit pending the outcome.
Unpaid-bill lawsuits
While Twitter paid the Wachtell legal bill before Musk could block the payment, dozens of lawsuits allege that X has refused to pay bills owed to other companies that started providing services to Twitter before the Musk takeover.
The suits were filed by software vendors, landlords, event planning firms, a private jet company, an office renovator, consultants, and other companies. The lawsuits helped some companies obtain payment via settlements, but X has continued to fight many of the allegations. We covered the unpaid-bill lawsuits in-depth in this lengthy article published in September.
Musk sues Media Matters
Musk has repeatedly blamed outside parties for X’s financial problems, which are largely due to advertisers not wanting to be associated with offensive and controversial content that used to be more heavily moderated before Musk slashed the company’s staff.
One of the biggest ad-spending drops came after a November 16 Media Matters report that said corporate ads were placed “next to content that touts Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.” Musk’s X Corp responded by suing Media Matters a few days later, claiming the group “manipulated the algorithms governing the user experience on X to bypass safeguards and create images of X’s largest advertisers’ paid posts adjacent to racist, incendiary content.”
The suit was filed in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. There aren’t any significant updates on the case to report yet.
X Corp. previously filed a similar lawsuit against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), claiming the group “improperly gain[ed] access” to data, and “cherry-pick[ed] from the hundreds of millions of posts made each day on X” in order to “falsely claim it had statistical support showing the platform is overwhelmed with harmful content.”
The CCDC filed a motion to dismiss X’s lawsuit on November 16, saying that its actions constituted “newsgathering activity in furtherance of the CCDH defendants’ protected speech and reporting.” The motion and case are still pending in US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Musk suit against data scrapers tossed
In July, X Corp. sued unidentified data scrapers in Dallas County District Court, accusing them of “severely tax[ing]” company servers by “flooding Twitter’s sign-up page with automated requests.” The lawsuit was filed days after Twitter imposed rate limits capping the number of tweets users could view each day.
“Several entities tried to scrape every tweet ever made in a short period of time. That is why we had to put rate limits in place,” Musk wrote at the time.
The lawsuit initially listed four John Doe defendants and was amended to raise the number of defendants to 11. This was a tough lawsuit for X to pursue because it didn’t know who the scrapers were and identified them only by their IP addresses.
X issued subpoenas to Amazon Web Services, Akamai, and Google in attempts to gain information on the John Does behind the IP addresses, but the case fizzled out. On October 30, a Dallas County judge dismissed the lawsuit “for want of prosecution” and ordered X to pay the court costs.
