News
Here’s exactly what Elon Musk said about letting Trump back on Twitter
During his interview with Financial Times, Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated that he would allow former U.S. President Donald Trump to return to Twitter if his pending $44 billion deal for the social media platform goes through. Some of Musk’s comments are being construed as he would allow Trump, who was banned from Twitter on January 8, 2021, to return to the platform with no limits. Instead, Musk’s statements regarding the reversal of Trump’s Twitter ban were more general.
Musk said permanent bans should be extremely rare and reserved for accounts that are not human, meaning they are either spam or bots. If “there is no legitimacy to the account at all,” as Musk put it, the account should not be allowed to appear on Twitter. Musk stated on several occasions that Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey agrees with him on this point.
Here is what Musk said, word for word, to the question “Are you planning to let Donald Trump back on?”:
Musk: “Well, uh, I think the general question of ‘Should Twitter have permanent bans,’ um, and, I’ve talked with Jack Dorsey about this, and, he and I are of the same mind, which is that permanent bans should be extremely rare, and really reserved for people who are trying to — for accounts that are bots or spam/scam accounts, where there’s just no legitimacy to the account at all. Um, I do think that it was not correct to ban Donald Trump; I think that was a mistake because it alienated a large part of the country, and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice. He is now going to be on Truth Social, as will a large part of the, sort of, the Right in the United States. And, so, I think this could end up being frankly worse than having a single forum where everyone can debate. Um, so, I guess the answer is that I would reverse the permanent ban. I don’t own Twitter, yet, so this is not like a thing that will definitely happen, because, what if I don’t own Twitter? But, my opinion, and Jack Dorsey, I want to be clear, shares this opinion, is that we should not have permanent bans. Now, that doesn’t mean that somebody gets to say whatever they want to say. If they say something that is illegal, or, otherwise, you know, destructive to the world, then there should perhaps be a “time out,” a temporary suspension, or that particular Tweet should be made invisible or have very limited traction. But, I think perma-bans just fundamentally undermine trust in Twitter as a “town square,” where everyone can voice their opinion. I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme.”
Interviewer: “Even after he egged on the crowd who went to the U.S. Capitol, some of them carrying nooses. You still think it was a mistake to remove him?”
Musk: “I think if there are Tweets that are wrong and bad, they should be either deleted or made invisible and a suspension, a temporary suspension is appropriate. But not a permanent ban.”
Interviewer: “So if the deal completes, he might potentially come back on but with the understanding that if he does something similar again, he’ll be back in the Sin Bin?”
Musk: “He has publicly stated that he will not be coming back to Twitter, um and that he will only be on Truth Social. And this is the point I am trying to make, which is perhaps not getting across, is that banning Trump from Twitter didn’t end Trump’s voice. It will amplify it among the Right, and this is why it is morally wrong and flat-out stupid.”
Musk, whose $44 billion offer for Twitter was officially accepted on April 25, still has to wait for shareholders to vote to confirm the sale of the platform. The deal should be completed by October 24, 2022, according to SEC documents.
Musk’s remarks regarding the Trump Twitter ban can also be heard below.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles.
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla has long emphasized that large-scale real-world data is central to improving its neural network-based approach to autonomy. Each mile driven with FSD (Supervised) engaged contributes additional edge cases and scenario training for the system.
The milestone also brings Tesla closer to a benchmark previously outlined by CEO Elon Musk. Musk has stated that roughly 10 billion miles of training data may be needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving at scale, citing the “long tail” of rare but complex driving situations that must be learned through experience.
The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable.
As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.
At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.
With the fleet now past 8.4 billion cumulative miles, Tesla’s supervised system is approaching that threshold, even as regulatory approval for fully unsupervised deployment remains subject to further validation and oversight.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Elon Musk fired back at Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales after the longtime online encyclopedia leader dismissed xAI’s new AI-powered alternative, Grokipedia, as a “ridiculous” idea that is bound to fail.
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Wales made the comments while answering questions about Wikipedia’s neutrality. According to Wales, Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality.
“One of our core values at Wikipedia is neutrality. A neutral point of view is non-negotiable. It’s in the community, unquestioned… The idea that we’ve become somehow ‘Wokepidea’ is just not true,” Wales said.
When asked about potential competition from Grokipedia, Wales downplayed the situation. “There is no competition. I don’t know if anyone uses Grokipedia. I think it is a ridiculous idea that will never work,” Wales wrote.
After Grokipedia went live, Larry Sanger, also a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on X that his initial impression of the AI-powered Wikipedia alternative was “very OK.”
“My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say ‘maybe!’” Sanger stated.
Musk responded to Sanger’s assessment by saying it was “accurate.” In a separate post, he added that even in its V0.1 form, Grokipedia was already better than Wikipedia.
During a past appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has drifted from its original vision, citing concerns about how its “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” framework categorizes publications by perceived credibility. As per Sanger, Wikipedia’s “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list leans heavily left, with conservative publications getting effectively blacklisted in favor of their more liberal counterparts.
As of writing, Grokipedia has reportedly surpassed 80% of English Wikipedia’s article count.
News
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.
Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.
While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing.
“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely.
“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said.
The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.
Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”
Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker.
“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all.
“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
