News
Elon Musk shares insights on jet tracker ban, Twitter’s privacy info policy updates
Twitter officially banned the account of jet tracker Jack Sweeney on Wednesday, together with his other accounts that track notable people such as Elon Musk. Sweeney’s ban has been linked to an incident involving Elon Musk’s Baby X, his youngest son with record producer and musician Grimes. Twitter also updated its privacy information policy.
Jack Sweeney’s POV
Jack Sweeney’s Twitter account @ElonJet tracks the routes of the Tesla CEO’s private jet using air traffic data and posts it to the public via the social media platform. On Wednesday, Sweeney stated that his @ElonJet account, his personal account @JxckSweeney, and his other jet trackers were suspended as well. The University of Central Florida college student noted that he would continue tracking Elon Musk’s plane and sharing the information via alternative social media platforms such as Mastodon.
Before his Twitter accounts were suspended, Sweeney’s Musk jet tracker was reportedly shadowbanned. A shadowban makes it difficult for other Twitter users to find an account.
Elon Musk’s POV
Elon Musk shares some insights on why Sweeney’s jet trackers were banned through Twitter recently.
“Any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info. Posting locations someone traveled to on a slightly delayed basis isn’t a safety problem, so is ok.
“Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto the hood. Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family,” Musk wrote.
Twitter’s Private Information Policy
Amidst news of Sweeney’s jet trackers’ suspensions, Twitter updated its Private Information Policy, prohibiting anyone from sharing another person’s “live” location “in most cases.”
“When someone shares an individual’s live location on Twitter, there is an increased risk of physical harm. Moving forward, we’ll remove Tweets that share this information, and accounts dedicated to sharing someone else’s live location will be suspended,” Twitter explained.
Twitter users can share their own live location. They can also share the location information of other users as long as it is not on the same day. Twitter permits users to share the location of public gatherings, such as concerts or political events—although it did not clarify if “live” locations are permitted for these types of events.
The updated privacy policy also includes private media images or videos of private individuals without their consent. Although, this part of the policy seems to have leeway since Twitter recognizes that “there are instances where users may share images or videos of private individuals, who are not public figures, as part of a newsworthy event.”
The Main Issues
- What is freedom of speech?
- Does freedom of speech have limits?
- What is privacy for public figures?
- Does affiliation with a public figure affect a person’s right to privacy?
Before acquiring Twitter, Elon Musk claimed that he wanted the platform to be a space that promotes freedom of speech. The billionaire used Sweeney’s @ElonJet account to highlight that he was committed to free speech on Twitter. At the time, Musk acknowledged that @ElonJet was a “direct personal safety risk.”
While Musk may have accepted the risk to his own safety by keeping Sweeney’s account live, his family might be a different matter. The same may go for the other people who Sweeney kept tabs on through his Twitter accounts.
However, Musk was not the only one at fault here. Sweeney’s jet tracker supposedly provides the potential locations of public figures. However, it is not always clear-cut. In the Baby X incident, for example, the alleged perpetrator may have thought that the @ElonJet account was making Musk’s potential location public, not his son’s.
The information Sweeney dispenses might be too ambiguous, and may lead to many misunderstandings. For instance, earlier this year, Taylor Swift made headlines after Yard calculated that her flight emissions were 1,184.8 times more than the average person’s. Yard based its calculations on Sweeney’s @CelebJets account. While the figure might seem shocking, a spokesperson for Swift explained that the pop star loans her jet out regularly, so Yard’s findings were argued as “blatantly incorrect.”
I’d like to hear from you. Contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
