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.
-
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
