Twitter – Page 2

“Fascists”: Elon Musk responds to proposed fines for disinformation on X

australia, disinformation, elon musk, misinformation, Policy, syndication, Twitter, X / Mike M. / September 14, 2024

Being responsible is so hard —

“Elon Musk’s had more positions on free speech than the Kama Sutra,” says lawmaker.

Nic Fildes, Financial Times – Sep 13, 2024 1: 32 pm UTC

Getty Images | Dan Kitwood

Elon Musk has lambasted Australia’s government as “fascists” over proposed laws that could levy substantial fines on social media companies if they fail to comply with rules to combat the spread of disinformation and online scams.

The billionaire owner of social media site X posted the word “fascists” on Friday in response to the bill, which would strengthen the Australian media regulator’s ability to hold companies responsible for the content on their platforms and levy potential fines of up to 5 percent of global revenue. The bill, which was proposed this week, has yet to be passed.

Musk’s comments drew rebukes from senior Australian politicians, with Stephen Jones, Australia’s finance minister, telling national broadcaster ABC that it was “crackpot stuff” and the legislation was a matter of sovereignty.

Bill Shorten, the former leader of the Labor Party and a cabinet minister, accused the billionaire of only championing free speech when it was in his commercial interests. “Elon Musk’s had more positions on free speech than the Kama Sutra,” Shorten said in an interview with Australian radio.

The exchange marks the second time that Musk has confronted Australia over technology regulation.

In May, he accused the country’s eSafety Commissioner of censorship after the government agency took X to court in an effort to force it to remove graphic videos of a stabbing attack in Sydney. A court later denied the eSafety Commissioner’s application.

Musk has also been embroiled in a bitter dispute with authorities in Brazil, where the Supreme Court ruled last month that X should be blocked over its failure to remove or suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hateful content.

Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to regulate the technology sector, pitting it against some of the world’s largest social media companies.

This week, the government pledged to introduce a minimum age limit for social media use to tackle “screen addiction” among young people.

In March, Canberra threatened to take action against Meta after the owner of Facebook and Instagram said it would withdraw from a world-first deal to pay media companies to link to news stories.

The government also introduced new data privacy measures to parliament on Thursday that would impose hefty fines and potential jail terms of up to seven years for people found guilty of “doxxing” individuals or groups.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government had pledged to outlaw doxxing—the publication of personal details online for malicious purposes—this year after the details of a private WhatsApp group containing hundreds of Jewish Australians were published online.

Australia is one of the first countries to pursue laws outlawing doxxing. It is also expected to introduce a tranche of laws in the coming months to regulate how personal data can be used by artificial intelligence.

“These reforms give more teeth to the regulation,” said Monique Azzopardi at law firm Clayton Utz.

“Fascists”: Elon Musk responds to proposed fines for disinformation on X Read More »

Ex-Twitter staffer wins $600K over Musk’s click-yes-or-resign ultimatum

elon musk, employment law, ireland, Labor law, Policy, severance, Twitter, x corp / Paul Patrick / August 13, 2024

Please, be reasonable —

Elon Musk’s 24-hour email ultimatum unfairly dismissed Twitter staff, court says.

Ashley Belanger – Aug 13, 2024 6: 35 pm UTC

Elon Musk had no business sending Twitter employees an email giving them 24 hours to click “yes” to keep their jobs or else voluntarily resign during his takeover in 2022, an Irish workplace watchdog ruled Monday.

Not only did the email not provide staff with enough notice, the labor court ruled, but also any employee’s failure to click “yes” could in no way constitute a legal act of resignation. Instead, the court reviewed evidence alleging that the email appeared designed to either get employees to agree to new employment terms, sight unseen, or else push employees to volunteer for dismissal during a time of mass layoffs across Twitter.

“Going forward, to build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hardcore,” Musk wrote in the all-staff email. “This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade.”

With the subject line, “A Fork in the Road,” the email urged staff, “if you are sure that you want to be part of the new Twitter, please click yes on the link below. Anyone who has not done so by 5pm ET tomorrow (Thursday) will receive three months of severance. Whatever decision you make, thank you for your efforts to make Twitter successful.”

In a 73-page ruling, an adjudication officer for the Irish Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Michael MacNamee, ruled that Twitter’s abrupt dismissal of an Ireland-based senior executive, Gary Rooney, was unfair, the Irish public service broadcaster RTÉ reported. Rooney had argued that his contract clearly stated that his resignation must be provided in writing, not by refraining to fill out a form.

A spokesperson for the Department of Enterprise, Trade, and Employment, which handles the WRC’s media inquiries, told Ars that the decision will be published on the WRC’s website on August 26 after both parties have “the opportunity to consider it in full.”

Now, instead of paying Rooney the draft severance amount worth a little more than $25,000, Twitter, which is now called X, has to pay Rooney more than $600,000. According to many outlets, this is a record award from the WRC and included about $220,000 “for prospective future loss of earnings.”

The WRC dismissed Rooney’s claim regarding an allegedly owed performance bonus for 2022 but otherwise largely agreed with his arguments on the unfair dismissal.

Rooney had worked for Twitter for nine years prior to Musk’s takeover, telling the WRC that he previously loved his job but had no way of knowing from the “Fork in the Road” email “what package was being offered” or “implications of agreeing to stay working for Twitter.” He hesitated to click yes, not knowing how his benefits or stock options might change, while discussing his decision to potentially leave with other Twitter employees on Slack and claiming he would be leaving on Twitter.

Twitter tried to argue that the Slack discussions and Rooney’s tweets about the email indicated that he intended to resign, but the court disagreed that these were relevant.

“No employee when faced with such a situation could possibly be faulted for refusing to be compelled to give an open-ended unqualified assent to any of the proposals,” MacNamee said.

In total, 35 Twitter staffers didn’t click “yes”

A lot of laid-off employees sued Twitter after Musk’s takeover, and so far, X has seemed to come out ahead. The company has beaten at least one lawsuit while also threatening to claw back money it claims it “overpaid” Australian employees who were laid off. (X says it bungled the conversion from Australian to US dollars.) Rooney’s suit is among the first major victories for laid-off Twitter staffers fighting Musk’s allegedly unfair and penny-pinching severance packages.

X’s senior director of human resources, Lauren Wegman, testified that of the 270 employees in Ireland who received the email, only 35 did not click yes. After this week’s ruling, it seems likely that X may face more complaints from any of those dozens of employees who took the same route Rooney did.

X has not commented on the ruling but is likely disappointed by the loss. The social media company had tried to argue that Rooney’s employment contract “allowed the company to make reasonable changes to its terms and conditions,” RTÉ reported. Wegman had further testified that it was unreasonable for Rooney to believe his pay might change as a result of clicking yes, telling the WRC that his “employment would probably not have ended if he had raised a grievance” within the 24-hour deadline, RTÉ reported.

Rooney’s lawyer, Barry Kenny, told The Guardian that Rooney and his legal team welcomed “the clear and unambiguous finding that my client did not resign from his employment but was unfairly dismissed from his job, notwithstanding his excellent employment record and contribution to the company over the years.”

“It is not okay for Mr. Musk, or indeed any large company to treat employees in such a manner in this country,” Kenny said. “The record award reflects the seriousness and the gravity of the case.”

Twitter will be able to appeal the WRC’s decision, The Journal reported.

Ex-Twitter staffer wins $600K over Musk’s click-yes-or-resign ultimatum Read More »

X is training Grok AI on your data—here’s how to stop it

AI, chatbot, elon musk, grok, llm, privacy, Tech, Twitter, X, x.AI / Mike M. / July 26, 2024

Grok Your Privacy Options —

Some users were outraged to learn this was opt-out, not opt-in.

Samuel Axon – Jul 26, 2024 6: 13 pm UTC

An AI-generated image released by xAI during the launch of Grok — Enlarge / An AI-generated image released by xAI during the open-weights launch of Grok-1.

Elon Musk-led social media platform X is training Grok, its AI chatbot, on users’ data, and that’s opt-out, not opt-in. If you’re an X user, that means Grok is already being trained on your posts if you haven’t explicitly told it not to.

Over the past day or so, users of the platform noticed the checkbox to opt out of this data usage in X’s privacy settings. The discovery was accompanied by outrage that user data was being used this way to begin with.

The social media posts about this sometimes seem to suggest that Grok has only just begun training on X users’ data, but users actually don’t know for sure when it started happening.

Earlier today, X’s Safety account tweeted, “All X users have the ability to control whether their public posts can be used to train Grok, the AI search assistant.” But it didn’t clarify either when the option became available or when the data collection began.

You cannot currently disable it in the mobile apps, but you can on mobile web, and X says the option is coming to the apps soon.

On the privacy settings page, X says:

To continuously improve your experience, we may utilize your X posts as well as your user interactions, inputs, and results with Grok for training and fine-tuning purposes. This also means that your interactions, inputs, and results may also be shared with our service provider xAI for these purposes.

X’s privacy policy has allowed for this since at least September 2023.

It’s increasingly common for user data to be used this way; for example, Meta has done the same with its users’ content, and there was an outcry when Adobe updated its terms of use to allow for this kind of thing. (Adobe quickly backtracked and promised to “never” train generative AI on creators’ content.)

How to opt out

To stop Grok from training on your X content, first go to “Settings and privacy” from the “More” menu in the navigation panel…

Samuel Axon
Then click or tap “Privacy and safety”…

Samuel Axon
Then “Grok”…

Samuel Axon
And finally, uncheck the box.

Samuel Axon

You can’t opt out within the iOS or Android apps yet, but you can do so in a few quick steps on either mobile or desktop web. To do so:

Click or tap “More” in the nav panel
Click or tap “Settings and privacy”
Click or tap “Privacy and safety”
Scroll down and click or tap “Grok” under “Data sharing and personalization”
Uncheck the box “Allow your posts as well as your interactions, inputs, and results with Grok to be used for training and fine-tuning,” which is checked by default.

Alternatively, you can follow this link directly to the settings page and uncheck the box with just one more click. If you’d like, you can also delete your conversation history with Grok here, provided you’ve actually used the chatbot before.

X is training Grok AI on your data—here’s how to stop it Read More »

No judge with Tesla stock should handle Elon Musk cases, watchdog argues

elon musk, media matter for America, online advertising, Policy, Tesla, Tesla stock, Twitter, twitter ad boycott, X, x ad boycott, x corp / Mike M. / July 24, 2024

Elon Musk’s fight against Media Matters for America (MMFA)—a watchdog organization that he largely blames for an ad boycott that tanked Twitter/X’s revenue—has raised an interesting question about whether any judge owning Tesla stock might reasonably be considered biased when weighing any lawsuit centered on the tech billionaire.

In a court filing Monday, MMFA lawyers argued that “undisputed facts—including statements from Musk and Tesla—lay bare the interest Tesla shareholders have in this case.” According to the watchdog, any outcome in the litigation will likely impact Tesla’s finances, and that’s a problem because there’s a possibility that the judge in the case, Reed O’Connor, owns Tesla stock.

“X cannot dispute the public association between Musk—his persona, business practices, and public remarks—and the Tesla brand,” MMFA argued. “That association would lead a reasonable observer to ‘harbor doubts’ about whether a judge with a financial interest in Musk could impartially adjudicate this case.”

It’s still unclear if Judge O’Connor actually owns Tesla stock. But after MMFA’s legal team uncovered disclosures showing that he did as of last year, they argued that fact can only be clarified if the court views Tesla as a party with a “financial interest in the outcome of the case” under Texas law—“no matter how small.”

To make those facts clear, MMFA is now arguing that X must be ordered to add Tesla as an interested person in the litigation, which a source familiar with the matter told Ars, would most likely lead to a recusal if O’Connor indeed still owned Tesla stock.

“At most, requiring X to disclose Tesla would suggest that judges owning stock in Tesla—the only publicly traded Musk entity—should recuse from future cases in which Musk himself is demonstrably central to the dispute,” MMFA argued.

Ars could not immediately reach X Corp’s lawyer for comment.

However, in X’s court filing opposing the motion to add Tesla as an interested person, X insisted that “Tesla is not a party to this case and has no interest in the subject matter of the litigation, as the business relationships at issue concern only X Corp.’s contracts with X’s advertisers.”

Calling MMFA’s motion “meritless,” X accused MMFA of strategizing to get Judge O’Connor disqualified in order to go “forum shopping” after MMFA received “adverse rulings” on motions to stay discovery and dismiss the case.

As to the question of whether any judge owning Tesla stock might be considered impartial in weighing Musk-centric cases, X argued that Judge O’Connor was just as duty-bound to reject an improper motion for recusal, should MMFA go that route, as he was to accept a proper motion.

“Courts are ‘reluctant to fashion a rule requiring judges to recuse themselves from all cases that might remotely affect nonparty companies in which they own stock,'” X argued.

Recently, judges have recused themselves from cases involving Musk without explaining why. In November, a prior judge in the very same Media Matters’ suit mysteriously recused himself, with The Hill reporting that it was likely that the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” for reasons like a financial interest or personal bias. Then in June, another judge ruled he was disqualified to rule on a severance lawsuit raised by former Twitter executives without giving “a specific reason,” Bloomberg Law reported.

Should another recusal come in the MMFA lawsuit, it would be a rare example of a judge clearly disclosing a financial interest in a Musk case.

“The straightforward question is whether Musk’s statements and behavior relevant to this case affect Tesla’s stock price, not whether they are the only factor that affects it,” MMFA argued. ” At the very least, there is a serious question about whether Musk’s highly unusual management practices mean Tesla must be disclosed as an interested party.”

Parties expect a ruling on MMFA’s motion in the coming weeks.

No judge with Tesla stock should handle Elon Musk cases, watchdog argues Read More »

Elon Musk’s X tests letting users request Community Notes on bad posts

AI, Artificial Intelligence, chatbot, community notes, disinformation, elon musk, fact checking, grok, misinformation, online news, Policy, Twitter, X / Kris Guyer / July 19, 2024

Continuing to evolve the fact-checking service that launched as Twitter’s Birdwatch, X has announced that Community Notes can now be requested to clarify problematic posts spreading on Elon Musk’s platform.

X’s Community Notes account confirmed late Thursday that, due to “popular demand,” X had launched a pilot test on the web-based version of the platform. The test is active now and the same functionality will be “coming soon” to Android and iOS, the Community Notes account said.

Through the current web-based pilot, if you’re an eligible user, you can click on the “•••” menu on any X post on the web and request fact-checking from one of Community Notes’ top contributors, X explained. If X receives five or more requests within 24 hours of the post going live, a Community Note will be added.

Only X users with verified phone numbers will be eligible to request Community Notes, X said, and to start, users will be limited to five requests a day.

“The limit may increase if requests successfully result in helpful notes, or may decrease if requests are on posts that people don’t agree need a note,” X’s website said. “This helps prevent spam and keep note writers focused on posts that could use helpful notes.”

Once X receives five or more requests for a Community Note within a single day, top contributors with diverse views will be alerted to respond. On X, top contributors are constantly changing, as their notes are voted as either helpful or not. If at least 4 percent of their notes are rated “helpful,” X explained on its site, and the impact of their notes meets X standards, they can be eligible to receive alerts.

“A contributor’s Top Writer status can always change as their notes are rated by others,” X’s website said.

Ultimately, X considers notes helpful if they “contain accurate, high-quality information” and “help inform people’s understanding of the subject matter in posts,” X said on another part of its site. To gauge the former, X said that the platform partners with “professional reviewers” from the Associated Press and Reuters. X also continually monitors whether notes marked helpful by top writers match what general X users marked as helpful.

“We don’t expect all notes to be perceived as helpful by all people all the time,” X’s website said. “Instead, the goal is to ensure that on average notes that earn the status of Helpful are likely to be seen as helpful by a wide range of people from different points of view, and not only be seen as helpful by people from one viewpoint.”

X will also be allowing half of the top contributors to request notes during the pilot phase, which X said will help the platform evaluate “whether it is beneficial for Community Notes contributors to have both the ability to write notes and request notes.”

According to X, the criteria for requesting a note have intentionally been designed to be simple during the pilot stage, but X expects “these criteria to evolve, with the goal that requests are frequently found valuable to contributors, and not noisy.”

It’s hard to tell from the outside looking in how helpful Community Notes are to X users. The most recent Community Notes survey data that X points to is from 2022 when the platform was still called Twitter and the fact-checking service was still called Birdwatch.

That data showed that “on average,” users were “20–40 percent less likely to agree with the substance of a potentially misleading Tweet than someone who sees the Tweet alone.” And based on Twitter’s “internal data” at that time, the platform also estimated that “people on Twitter who see notes are, on average, 15–35 percent less likely to Like or Retweet a Tweet than someone who sees the Tweet alone.”

Elon Musk’s X tests letting users request Community Notes on bad posts Read More »

Elon Musk’s X may succeed in blocking Calif. content moderation law on appeal

California, content moderation, elon musk, First Amendment, free speech rights, Online speech, Policy, Twitter, X, x corp / Mike M. / July 18, 2024

Judgment call —

Elon Musk’s X previously failed to block the law on First Amendment grounds.

Ashley Belanger – Jul 18, 2024 8: 17 pm UTC

Elon Musk’s fight defending X’s content moderation decisions isn’t just with hate speech researchers and advertisers. He has also long been battling regulators, and this week, he seemed positioned to secure a potentially big win in California, where he’s hoping to permanently block a law that he claims unconstitutionally forces his platform to justify its judgment calls.

At a hearing Wednesday, three judges in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals seemed inclined to agree with Musk that a California law requiring disclosures from social media companies that clearly explain their content moderation choices likely violates the First Amendment.

Passed in 2022, AB-587 forces platforms like X to submit a “terms of service report” detailing how they moderate several categories of controversial content. Those categories include hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference, which X’s lawyer, Joel Kurtzberg, told judges yesterday “are the most controversial categories of so-called awful but lawful speech.”

The law would seemingly require more transparency than ever from X, making it easy for users to track exactly how much controversial content X flags and removes—and perhaps most notably for advertisers, how many users viewed concerning content.

To block the law, X sued in 2023, arguing that California was trying to dictate its terms of service and force the company to make statements on content moderation that could generate backlash. X worried that the law “impermissibly” interfered with both “the constitutionally protected editorial judgments” of social media companies, as well as impacted users’ speech by requiring companies “to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful.”

Any companies found to be non-compliant could face stiff fines of up to $15,000 per violation per day, which X considered “draconian.” But last year, a lower court declined to block the law, prompting X to appeal, and yesterday, the appeals court seemed more sympathetic to X’s case.

At the hearing, Kurtzberg told judges that the law was “deeply threatening to the well-established First Amendment interests” of an “extraordinary diversity of” people, which is why X’s complaint was supported by briefs from reporters, freedom of the press advocates, First Amendment scholars, “conservative entities,” and people across the political spectrum.

All share “a deep concern about a statute that, on its face, is aimed at pressuring social media companies to change their content moderation policies, so as to carry less or even no expression that’s viewed by the state as injurious to its people,” Kurtzberg told judges.

When the court pointed out that seemingly the law simply required X to abide by content moderation policies for each category defined in its own terms of service—and did not compel X to adopt any policy or position that it did not choose—Kurtzberg pushed back.

“They don’t mandate us to define the categories in a specific way, but they mandate us to take a position on what the legislature makes clear are the most controversial categories to moderate and define,” Kurtzberg said. “We are entitled to respond to the statute by saying we don’t define hate speech or racism. But the report also asks about policies that are supposedly, quote, ‘intended’ to address those categories, which is a judgment call.”

“This is very helpful,” Judge Anthony Johnstone responded. “Even if you don’t yourself define those categories in the terms of service, you read the law as requiring you to opine or discuss those categories, even if they’re not part of your own terms,” and “you are required to tell California essentially your views on hate speech, extremism, harassment, foreign political interference, how you define them or don’t define them, and what you choose to do about them?”

“That is correct,” Kurtzberg responded, noting that X considered those categories the most “fraught” and “difficult to define.”

Elon Musk’s X may succeed in blocking Calif. content moderation law on appeal Read More »

Elon Musk denies tweets misled Twitter investors ahead of purchase

elon musk, fraud, Policy, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Twitter, x corp / Kris Guyer / July 5, 2024

Just before the Fourth of July holiday, Elon Musk moved to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that he intentionally misled Twitter investors in 2022 by failing to disclose his growing stake in Twitter while tweeting about potentially starting his own social network in the weeks ahead of announcing his plan to buy Twitter.

Allegedly, Musk devised this fraudulent scheme to reduce the Twitter purchase price by $200 million, a proposed class action filed by an Oklahoma Firefighters pension fund on behalf of all Twitter investors allegedly harmed claimed. But in another court filing this week, Musk insisted that “all indications”—including those referenced in the firefighters’ complaint—”point to mistake,” not fraud.

According to Musk, evidence showed that he simply misunderstood the Securities Exchange Act when he delayed filing a Rule 13 disclosure of his nearly 10 percent ownership stake in Twitter in March 2022. Musk argued that he believed he was required to disclose this stake at the end of the year, rather than within 10 days after the month in which he amassed a 5 percent stake. He said that previously he’d only filed Rule 13 disclosures as the owner of a company—not as someone suddenly acquiring 5 percent stake.

Musk claimed that as soon as his understanding of the law was corrected—on April 1, when he’d already missed the deadline by about seven days—he promptly stopped trading and filed the disclosure on the next trading day.

“Such prompt and corrective disclosure—within seven trading days of the purported deadline—is not the stuff of a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the market,” Musk’s court filing said.

As Musk sees it, the firefighters’ suit “makes no sense” because it basically alleged that Musk always intended to disclose the supposedly fraudulent scheme, which in the context of his extraordinary wealth, barely saved him any meaningful amount of money when purchasing Twitter.

The idea that Musk “engaged in intentional securities fraud in order to save $200 million is illogical in light of Musk’s eventual $44 billion purchase of Twitter,” Musk’s court filing said. “It defies logic that Musk would commit fraud to save less than 0.5 percent of Twitter’s total purchase price, and 0.1 percent of his net worth, all while knowing that there would be ‘an inevitable day of reckoning’ when he would disclose the truth—which was always his intent.”

It’s much more likely, Musk argued, that “Musk’s acknowledgement of his tardiness is that he was expressly acknowledging a mistake, not publicly conceding a purportedly days-old fraudulent scheme.”

Arguing that all firefighters showed was “enough to adequately plead a material omission and misstatement”—which he said would not be an actionable claim under the Securities Exchange Act—Musk has asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed with prejudice. At most, Musk is guilty of neglect, his court filing said, not deception. Allegedly Musk never “had any intention of avoiding reporting requirements,” his court filing said.

The firefighters pension fund has until August 12 to defend its claims and keep the suit alive, Musk’s court filing noted. In their complaint, the fighterfighteres had asked the court to award damages covering losses, plus interest, for all Twitter shareholders determined to be “cheated out of the true value of their securities” by Musk’s alleged scheme.

Ars could not immediately reach lawyers for Musk or the firefighters pension fund for comment.

Elon Musk denies tweets misled Twitter investors ahead of purchase Read More »

Elon Musk rushes to debut X payments as tech issues hamper creator payouts

elon musk, everything app, Policy, Twitter, X, x corp, x payments / Kris Guyer / June 18, 2024

Elon Musk is still frantically pushing to launch X payment services in the US by the end of 2024, Bloomberg reported Tuesday.

Launching payment services is arguably one of the reasons why Musk paid so much to acquire Twitter in 2022. His rebranding of the social platform into X revives a former dream he had as a PayPal co-founder who fought and failed to name the now-ubiquitous payments app X. Musk has told X staff that transforming the company into a payments provider would be critical to achieving his goal of turning X into a so-called everything app “within three to five years.”

Late last year, Musk said it would “blow” his “mind” if X didn’t roll out payments by the end of 2024, so Bloomberg’s report likely comes as no big surprise to Musk’s biggest fans who believe in his vision. At that time, Musk said he wanted X users’ “entire financial lives” on the platform before 2024 ended, and a Bloomberg review of “more than 350 pages of documents and emails related to money transmitter licenses that X Payments submitted in 11 states” shows approximately how close he is to making that dream a reality on his platform.

X Payments, a subsidiary of X, reports that X already has money transmitter licenses in 28 states, but X wants to secure licenses in all states before 2024 winds down, Bloomberg reported.

Bloomberg’s review found that X has a multiyear plan to gradually introduce payment features across the US—including “Venmo-like” features to send and receive money, as well as make purchases online—but hopes to begin that process this year. Payment providers like Stripe and Adyen have already partnered with X to process its transactions, Bloomberg reported, and X has told regulators that it “anticipated” that its payments system would also rely on those partnerships.

Musk initially had hoped to launch payments globally in 2024, but regulatory pressures forced him to tamp down those ambitions, Bloomberg reported. States like Massachusetts, for example, required X to resubmit its application only after more than half of US states had issued licenses, Bloomberg found.

Ultimately, Musk wants X to become the largest financial institution in the world. Bloomberg reported that he plans to do this by giving users a convenient “digital dashboard” through X “that will serve as a centralized hub for all payments activity” online. To make sure that users keep their money stashed on the platform, Musk plans to offer “extremely high yield” savings accounts that X Payments’ chief information security officer, Chris Stanley, teased in April would basically guarantee that funds are rarely withdrawn from X.

“The end goal is if you ever have any incentive to take money out of our system, then we have failed,” Stanley posted on X.

Stanley compared X payments to Venmo and Apple Pay and said X’s plan for its payment feature was to “evolve” so that X users “can gain interest, buy products,” and “eventually use it to buy things in stores.”

Bloomberg confirmed that X does not plan to charge users any fees to send or receive payments, although Musk has told regulators that offering payments will “boost” X’s business by increasing X users’ “participation and engagement.” Analysts told Bloomberg that X could also profit off payments by charging merchants fees or by “offering banking services, such as checking accounts and debit cards.”

Musk has told X staff that he plans to offer checking accounts, debit cards, and even loans through X, saying that “if you address all things that you want from a finance standpoint, then we will be the people’s financial institution.”

X CEO Linda Yaccarino has been among the biggest cheerleaders for Musk’s plan to turn X into a bank, writing in a blog last year, “We want money on X to flow as freely as information and conversation.”

Elon Musk rushes to debut X payments as tech issues hamper creator payouts Read More »

Elon Musk’s X defeats Australia’s global takedown order of stabbing video

Australian, censorship, elon musk, First Amendment, free speech, julie inman-grant, online safety act, Policy, Twitter, X, x corp / Kris Guyer / June 5, 2024

Australia’s safety regulator has ended a legal battle with X (formerly Twitter) after threatening approximately $500,000 daily fines for failing to remove 65 instances of a religiously motivated stabbing video from X globally.

Enforcing Australia’s Online Safety Act, eSafety commissioner Julie Inman-Grant had argued it would be dangerous for the videos to keep spreading on X, potentially inciting other acts of terror in Australia.

But X owner Elon Musk refused to comply with the global takedown order, arguing that it would be “unlawful and dangerous” to allow one country to control the global Internet. And Musk was not alone in this fight. The legal director of a nonprofit digital rights group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Corynne McSherry, backed up Musk, urging the court to agree that “no single country should be able to restrict speech across the entire Internet.”

“We welcome the news that the eSafety Commissioner is no longer pursuing legal action against X seeking the global removal of content that does not violate X’s rules,” X’s Global Government Affairs account posted late Tuesday night. “This case has raised important questions on how legal powers can be used to threaten global censorship of speech, and we are heartened to see that freedom of speech has prevailed.”

Inman-Grant was formerly Twitter’s director of public policy in Australia and used that experience to land what she told The Courier-Mail was her “dream role” as Australia’s eSafety commissioner in 2017. Since issuing the order to remove the video globally on X, Inman-Grant had traded barbs with Musk (along with other Australian lawmakers), responding to Musk labeling her a “censorship commissar” by calling him an “arrogant billionaire” for fighting the order.

On X, Musk arguably got the last word, posting, “Freedom of speech is worth fighting for.”

Safety regulator still defends takedown order

In a statement, Inman-Grant said early Wednesday that her decision to discontinue proceedings against X was part of an effort to “consolidate actions,” including “litigation across multiple cases.” She ultimately determined that dropping the case against X would be the “option likely to achieve the most positive outcome for the online safety of all Australians, especially children.”

“Our sole goal and focus in issuing our removal notice was to prevent this extremely violent footage from going viral, potentially inciting further violence and inflicting more harm on the Australian community,” Inman-Grant said, still defending the order despite dropping it.

In court, X’s lawyer Marcus Hoyne had pushed back on such logic, arguing that the eSafety regulator’s mission was “pointless” because “footage of the attack had now spread far beyond the few dozen URLs originally identified,” the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported.

“I stand by my investigators and the decisions eSafety made,” Inman-Grant said.

Other Australian lawmakers agree the order was not out of line. According to AP News, Australian Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland shared a similar statement in parliament today, backing up the safety regulator while scolding X users who allegedly took up Musk’s fight by threatening Inman-Grant and her family. The safety regulator has said that Musk’s X posts incited a “pile-on” from his followers who allegedly sent death threats and exposed her children’s personal information, the BBC reported.

“The government backs our regulators and we back the eSafety Commissioner, particularly in light of the reprehensible threats to her physical safety and the threats to her family in the course of doing her job,” Rowland said.

Elon Musk’s X defeats Australia’s global takedown order of stabbing video Read More »

Nvidia emails: Elon Musk diverting Tesla GPUs to his other companies

Cars, elon musk, NVIDIA, Nvidia H100, Tesla, Twitter, X, xAI / Kris Guyer / June 4, 2024

why not just make cars? —

The Tesla CEO is accused of diverting resources from the company again.

Jonathan M. Gitlin – Jun 4, 2024 4: 07 pm UTC

A row of server racks — Enlarge / Tesla will have to rely on its Dojo supercomputer for a while longer after CEO Elon Musk diverted 12,000 Nvidia GPU clusters to X instead.

Tesla

Elon Musk is yet again being accused of diverting Tesla resources to his other companies. This time, it’s high-end H100 GPU clusters from Nvidia. CNBC’s Lora Kolodny reports that while Tesla ordered these pricey computers, emails from Nvidia staff show that Musk instead redirected 12,000 GPUs to be delivered to his social media company X.

It’s almost unheard of for a profitable automaker to pivot its business into another sector, but that appears to be the plan at Tesla as Musk continues to say that the electric car company is instead destined to be an AI and robotics firm instead.

Does Tesla make cars or AI?

That explains why Musk told investors in April that Tesla had spent $1 billion on GPUs in the first three months of this year, almost as much as it spent on R&D, despite being desperate for new models to add to what is now an old and very limited product lineup that is suffering rapidly declining sales in the US and China.

Despite increasing federal scrutiny here in the US, Tesla has reduced the price of its controversial “full-self driving” assist, and the automaker is said to be close to rolling out the feature in China. (Questions remain about how many Chinese Teslas would be able to utilize this feature given that a critical chip was left out of 1.2 million cars built there during the chip shortage.)

Perfecting this driver assist would be very valuable to Tesla, which offers FSD as a monthly subscription as an alternative to a one-off payment. The profit margins for subscription software services vastly outstrip the margins Tesla can make selling physical cars, which dropped to just 5.5 percent for Q1 2024. And Tesla says that massive GPU clusters are needed to develop FSD’s software.

Isn’t Tesla desperate for Nvidia GPUs?

Tesla has been developing its own in-house supercomputer for AI, called Dojo. But Musk has previously said that computer could be redundant if Tesla could source more H100s. “If they could deliver us enough GPUs, we might not need Dojo, but they can’t because they’ve got so many customers,” Musk said during a July 2023 investor day.

Which makes his decision to have his other companies jump all the more notable. In December, an internal Nvidia memo seen by CNBC said, “Elon prioritizing X H100 GPU cluster deployment at X versus Tesla by redirecting 12k of shipped H100 GPUs originally slated for Tesla to X instead. In exchange, original X orders of 12k H100 slated for Jan and June to be redirected to Tesla.”

X and the affiliated xAi are developing generative AI products like large language models.

Not the first time

This is not the first time that Musk has been accused of diverting resources (and his time) from publicly held Tesla to his other privately owned enterprises. In December 2022, US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote to Tesla asking Tesla to explain whether Musk was diverting Tesla resources to X (then called Twitter):

This use of Tesla employees raises obvious questions about whether Mr. Musk is appropriating resources from a publicly traded firm, Tesla, to benefit his own private company, Twitter. This, of course, would violate Mr. Musk’s legal duty of loyalty to Tesla and trigger questions about the Tesla Board’s responsibility to prevent such actions, and may also run afoul other “anti-tunneling rules that aim to prevent corporate insiders from extracting resources from their firms.”

Musk giving time meant (and compensated) for by Tesla to SpaceX, X, and his other ventures was also highlighted as a problem by the plaintiffs in a successful lawsuit to overturn a $56 billion stock compensation package.

And last summer, the US Department of Justice opened an investigation into whether Musk used Tesla resources to build a mansion for the CEO in Texas; the probe has since expanded to cover behavior stretching back to 2017.

These latest accusations of misuse of Tesla resources come at a time when Musk is asking shareholders to reapprove what is now a $46 billion stock compensation plan.

Nvidia emails: Elon Musk diverting Tesla GPUs to his other companies Read More »

Butts, breasts, and genitals now explicitly allowed on Elon Musk’s X

adult content, non-consensual intimate imagery, online porn, Policy, pornography, Twitter, X / Rejus Almole / June 3, 2024

Adult content has always proliferated on Twitter, but the platform now called X recently clarified its policy to officially allow “consensually produced and distributed adult nudity or sexual behavior.”

X’s rules seem simple. As long as content is “properly labeled and not prominently displayed,” users can share material—including AI-generated or animated content—”that is pornographic or intended to cause sexual arousal.”

“We believe that users should be able to create, distribute, and consume material related to sexual themes as long as it is consensually produced and distributed,” X’s policy said.

The policy update seemingly reflects X’s core mission to defend all legal speech. It protects a wide range of sexual expression, including depictions of explicit or implicit sexual behavior, simulated sexual intercourse, full or partial nudity, and close-ups of genitals, buttocks, or breasts.

“Sexual expression, whether visual or written, can be a legitimate form of artistic expression,” X’s policy said. “We believe in the autonomy of adults to engage with and create content that reflects their own beliefs, desires, and experiences, including those related to sexuality.”

Today, X Support promoted the update on X, confirming that “we have launched Adult Content and Violent Content policies to bring more clarity of our Rules and transparency into enforcement of these areas. These policies replace our former Sensitive Media and Violent Speech policies—but what we enforce against hasn’t changed.”

Seemingly also unchanged: none of this content can be monetized, as X’s ad policy says that “to ensure a positive user experience and a healthy conversation on the platform, X prohibits the promotion of adult sexual content globally.”

Under the policy, adult content is also prohibited from appearing in live videos, profile pictures, headers, list banners, or community cover photos.

X has been toying with the idea of fully embracing adult content and has even planned a feature for adult creators that could position X as an OnlyFans rival. That plan was delayed, Platformer reported in 2022, after red-teaming flagged a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to the launch: “Twitter cannot accurately detect child sexual exploitation and non-consensual nudity at scale.”

The new adult content policy still emphasizes that non-consensual adult content is prohibited, but it’s unclear if the platform has gotten any better at distinguishing between consensually produced content and nonconsensual material. X did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

For adult content to be allowed on the platform, X now requires content warnings so that “users who do not wish to see it can avoid it” and “children below the age of 18 are not exposed to it.”

Users who plan to regularly post adult content can adjust their account’s media settings to place a label on all their images and videos. That results in a content warning for any visitor of that account’s profile, except for “people who have opted in to see possibly sensitive content,” who “will still see your account without the message.”

Users who only occasionally share adult content can choose to avoid the account label and instead edit an image or video to add a one-time label to any individual post, flagging just that post as sensitive.

Once a label is applied, any users under 18 will be blocked from viewing the post, X said.

Butts, breasts, and genitals now explicitly allowed on Elon Musk’s X Read More »

Musk can’t avoid testifying in SEC probe of Twitter buyout by playing victim

elon musk, Morgan Stanley, Policy, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Twitter, X, x corp / Kris Guyer / May 31, 2024

After months of loudly protesting a subpoena, Elon Musk has once again agreed to testify in the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s investigation into his acquisition of Twitter (now called X).

Musk tried to avoid testifying by arguing that the SEC had deposed him twice before, telling a US district court in California that the most recent subpoena was “the latest in a long string of SEC abuses of its investigative authority.”

But the court did not agree that Musk testifying three times in the SEC probe was either “abuse” or “overly burdensome.” Especially since the SEC has said it’s seeking a follow-up deposition after receiving “thousands of new documents” from Musk and third parties over the past year since his last depositions. And according to an order requiring Musk and the SEC to agree on a deposition date from US district judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, “Musk’s lament does not come close to meeting his burden of proving ‘the subpoena was issued in bad faith or for an improper purpose.'”

“Under Musk’s theory of reasonableness, the SEC must wait to depose a percipient witness until it has first gathered all relevant documents,” Corley wrote in the order. “But the law does not support that theory. Nor does common sense. In an investigation, the initial depositions can help an agency identify what documents are relevant and need to be requested in the first place.”

Corley’s court filing today shows that Musk didn’t even win his fight to be deposed remotely. He has instead agreed to sit for no more than five hours in person, which the SEC argued “will more easily allow for assessment of Musk’s demeanor and be more efficient as it avoids delays caused by technology.” (Last month, Musk gave a remote deposition where the Internet cut in and out, and Musk repeatedly dropped off the call.)

Musk’s deposition will be scheduled by mid-July. He is expected to testify on his Twitter stock purchases prior to his purchase of the platform, as well as his other investments surrounding the acquisition.

The SEC has been probing Musk’s Twitter stock purchases to determine if he violated a securities law that requires disclosures within 10 days from anyone who buys more than a 5 percent stake in a company. Musk missed that deadline by 11 days, as he amassed close to a 10 percent stake, and a proposed class action lawsuit from Twitter shareholders has suggested that he intentionally missed the deadline to keep Twitter stock prices artificially low while preparing for his Twitter purchase.

In an amended complaint filed this week, an Oklahoma firefighters pension fund—which sold more than 14,000 Twitter shares while Musk went on his buying spree—laid out Musk’s alleged scheme. The firefighters claim that the “goal” of Musk’s strategy was to purchase Twitter “cost effectively” and that this scheme was carried out by an unnamed Morgan Stanley banker who was motivated “to acquire billions of dollars of Twitter securities without tipping off the market” to curry favor with Musk.

As a seeming result, the firefighters’ complaint alleged that Morgan Stanley “pocketed over $1,460,000 in commissions just for executing” the “secret Twitter stock acquisition scheme.” And Morgan Stanley’s work seemingly pleased Musk so much that he went back for financial advising on the Twitter deal, the complaint alleged, paying Morgan Stanley an “estimated $42 million in fees.”

Messages from the banker show he was determined to keep the trading “absofuckinglutely quiet” to avoid the prospect that “anyone sniff anything out.”

Because of this secrecy, Twitter “investors suffered enormous damages” when Musk “belatedly disclosed his Twitter interests,” and “the price of Twitter’s stock predictably skyrocketed,” the complaint said.

“Ultimately, Musk went from owning zero shares of Twitter stock as of January 28, 2022 to spending over $2.6 billion to secretly acquire over 70 million shares” on April 4, 2022, the complaint said.

Musk can’t avoid testifying in SEC probe of Twitter buyout by playing victim Read More »