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 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
