News
Elon Musk isn’t the reason Twitter shelved its OnlyFans competition plans
Elon Musk is not responsible for Twitter’s decision to change its mind on creating an OnlyFans competition feature as some headlines imply. In fact, he isn’t even involved with this problem at all. This has been an issue that Twitter has been plagued with well before Elon made his bid to buy Twitter earlier this year.
The Verge initially reported that Twitter’s problem with child sexual abuse ruined its plans for an OnlyFans competitor and cited internal documents and Twitter employees.
The only connection to Elon Musk was his bid on Twitter earlier this spring. However, several headlines are linking Elon Musk to this fiasco and this is creating a dangerous narrative that takes the focus from the problem of sexual exploitation of children and refocuses it on Elon Musk.
My friend and fellow journalist, Eliza Bleu (TheBlaze), is a survivor of human trafficking and is now a survivor and advocate. Her article about Elon Musk’s vision for Twitter potentially solving the problem with the platform’s child sexual abuse material was actually censored by Twitter.
She brought the following misleading headlines to my attention. According to Business Insider, Twitter canceled its plans with competing with OnlyFans after Elon Musk placed his takeover bid. Although that headline has been changed, the narrative has been set.
In the report by The Verge, Twitter employees said that the company could not accurately detect child sexual exploitation and non-consensual nudity at scale.” And this was concluded in April 2022. This had absolutely nothing to do with Elon Musk’s bid to buy the company.
The Washington Post also published a similar article touching upon child exploitation, Twitter, and connecting Elon Musk’s decision to bid on buying Twitter.
However, as Eliza pointed out in the tweet below, this issue with child sexual exploitation isn’t new. She pointed to a 2012 article by The Guardian that is over 10 years old, titled “Twitter is failing to police child pornography efficiently.”
I appreciate you writing about this but “now apparently” the Guardian wrote about this issue in 12’.
The platform is currently being sued by two minor survivors headed to @US9thCircuit
Multiple countries have threatened to remove Twitter because of child sexual abuse material https://t.co/7Ga6tHetMI
— 𝔈𝔩𝔦𝔷𝔞 (@elizableu) August 31, 2022
The real issue isn’t Elon Musk.
The issue has been long-standing and bringing Elon Musk into the narrative takes the focus away from the actual problem. In 2021, The New York Post reported that Twitter refused to take down widely shared pornographic images of a teenage sex trafficking victim because Twitter “didn’t find a violation.” of its policies.
Earlier this month, the San Francisco Examiner reported that Twitter declined to remove a video that shows the sexual exploitation of minors. The child was only 13 years old and he and his family begged Twitter to remove the videos. Twitter refused, stating that it had reviewed the content and didn’t find a violation of its policies.
Hany Farid, the creator of PhotoDNA, an image identification, and content filtering technology that has been used as part of digital forensics, pointed out that this was child sexual abuse material.
“It’s child sexual abuse material. He was 13 years old and being extorted. What the hell is Twitter doing?”
I spoke with Eliza and she pointed out that this problem was well before Elon Musk made his bid to purchase the platform.
“Unfortunately, Twitter has had a long history of being unwilling to tackle child sexual exploitation material at scale. John Doe # 1 and John Doe #2, the two minor survivors currently suing Twitter, bravely stepped forward to sue the platform for refusal to remove the content long before Elon Musk made a bid to purchase Twitter.”
“Elon Musk is truly the least of Twitter’s concerns. The suffering of vulnerable children exploited and monetized on its platform should be a higher priority. Any attempt by the corporate media to act like the Elon Musk bid had a hand in stopping their plans to monazite adult sexual content is disrespectful to the brave minor survivors currently suing the platform. It’s also not factual.”
Recently, Elon Musk outlined several more reasons as to why he wanted out of the Twitter buyout deal. Perhaps he’ll add this to the list.
Your feedback is important. If you have any comments, or concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
Elon Musk
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Tesla’s breakthroughs with its 4680 battery cell program mark a significant milestone for the electric vehicle maker. This was, at least, as per Elon Musk in a recent post on social media platform X.
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Why dry-electrode matters
In a post on X, Elon Musk stated that making the dry-electrode process work at scale was “incredibly difficult,” calling it a major achievement for Tesla’s engineering, production, and supply chain teams, as well as its partner suppliers. He also shared his praise for the Tesla team for overcoming such a difficult task.
“Making the dry electrode process work at scale, which is a major breakthrough in lithium battery production technology, was incredibly difficult. Congratulations to the @Tesla engineering, production and supply chain teams and our strategic partner suppliers for this excellent achievement!” Musk wrote in his post.
Tesla’s official X account expanded on Musk’s remarks, stating that dry-electrode manufacturing “cuts cost, energy use & factory complexity while dramatically increasing scalability.” Bonne Eggleston, Tesla’s Vice President of 4680 batteries, also stated that “Getting dry electrode technology to scale is just the beginning.”
Tesla’s 4680 battery program
Tesla first introduced the dry-electrode concept at Battery Day in 2020, positioning it as a way to eliminate solvent-based electrode drying, shrink factory footprints, and lower capital expenditures. While Tesla has produced 4680 cells for some time, the dry cathode portion of the process proved far more difficult to industrialize than expected.
Together with its confirmation that it is producing 4680 cells in Austin with both electrodes manufactured using the dry process, Tesla has also stated that it has begun producing Model Y vehicles with 4680 battery packs. As per Tesla, this strategy was adopted as a safety layer against trade barriers and tariff risks.
“We have begun to produce battery packs for certain Model Ys with our 4680 cells, unlocking an additional vector of supply to help navigate increasingly complex supply chain challenges caused by trade barriers and tariff risks,” Tesla wrote in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
News
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Even Tesla China seems to have caught the Optimus V3 fever, with the electric vehicle maker teasing the impending arrival of the humanoid robot on its official Weibo account.
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Tesla China hypes up Optimus V3
Tesla China noted on its Weibo post that Optimus V3 is redesigned from first principles and is capable of learning new tasks by observing human behavior. The company has stated that it is targeting annual production capacity of up to one million humanoid robots once manufacturing scales.
During the Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, CEO Elon Musk stated that Tesla will wind down Model S and Model X production to free up factory space for the pilot production line of Optimus V3.
Musk later noted that Giga Texas should have a significantly larger Optimus line, though that will produce Optimus V4. He also made it a point to set expectations with Optimus’ production ramp, stating that the “normal S curve of manufacturing ramp will be longer for Optimus.”
Tesla China’s potential role
Tesla’s decision to announce the Optimus update on Weibo highlights the importance of the humanoid robot in the company’s global operations. Giga Shanghai is already Tesla’s largest manufacturing hub by volume, and Musk has repeatedly described China’s manufacturers as Tesla’s most legitimate competitors.
While Tesla has not confirmed where Optimus V3 will be produced or deployed first, the scale and efficiency of Gigafactory Shanghai make it a plausible candidate for future humanoid robot manufacturing or in-factory deployment. Musk has also suggested that Optimus could become available for public purchase as early as 2027, as noted in a CNEV Post report.
“It’s going to be a very capable robot. I think long-term Optimus will have a very significant impact on the US GDP. It will actually move the needle on US GDP significantly. In conclusion, there are still many who doubt our ambitions for creating amazing abundance. We are confident it can be done, and we are making the right moves technologically to ensure that it does,” Musk said during the earnings call.
Elon Musk
Tesla director pay lawsuit sees lawyer fees slashed by $100 million
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
The Delaware Supreme Court has cut more than $100 million from a legal fee award tied to a shareholder lawsuit challenging compensation paid to Tesla directors between 2017 and 2020.
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
Delaware Supreme Court trims legal fees
As noted in a Bloomberg Law report, the case targeted pay granted to Tesla directors, including CEO Elon Musk, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Kimbal Musk, and Rupert Murdoch. The Delaware Chancery Court had awarded $176 million to the plaintiffs. Tesla’s board must also return stock options and forego years worth of pay.
As per Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. in an opinion for the Delaware Supreme Court’s full five-member panel, however, the decision of the Delaware Chancery Court to award $176 million to a pension fund’s law firm “erred by including in its financial benefit analysis the intrinsic value” of options being returned by Tesla’s board.
The justices then reduced the fee award from $176 million to $70.9 million. “As we measure it, $71 million reflects a reasonable fee for counsel’s efforts and does not result in a windfall,” Chief Justice Seitz wrote.
Other settlement terms still intact
The Supreme Court upheld the settlement itself, which requires Tesla’s board to return stock and options valued at up to $735 million and to forgo three years of additional compensation worth about $184 million.
Tesla argued during oral arguments that a fee award closer to $70 million would be appropriate. Interestingly enough, back in October, Justice Karen L. Valihura noted that the $176 award was $60 million more than the Delaware judiciary’s budget from the previous year. This was quite interesting as the case was “settled midstream.”
The lawsuit was brought by a pension fund on behalf of Tesla shareholders and focused exclusively on director pay during the 2017–2020 period. The case is separate from other high-profile compensation disputes involving Elon Musk.
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
