Connect with us
Which is worse for Twitter advertisers: child sexual exploitation or Elon Musk? Which is worse for Twitter advertisers: child sexual exploitation or Elon Musk?

News

Which is worse for Twitter advertisers: child sexual exploitation or Elon Musk?

Credit: JC

Published

on

Following the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, many companies have paused or stopped their advertising campaigns. A report from Media Matters for America said that over half of Twitter’s top 100 advertisers are no longer advertising on the platform. 

In September, Twitter promoted ads alongside child pornography. Some of the brands called Twitter out on this and either paused or suspended their ad campaigns. 

Some advertisers that were not affected by Twitter’s accidental promotion of ads with child pornography continued to advertise with the platform. And some of these brands who did so paused their campaigns when Elon Musk took over. 

A key issue is that in the past, Twitter has been lenient toward child predators, yet advertisers have been advertising with the platform for many years. 

It wasn’t until Elon Musk bought the platform that Twitter made removing child sexual exploitation material priority number one. Some of these advertisers are only now pausing or suspending their ad campaigns after Elon Musk took over. 

A Twitter spokesperson said that the platform “has zero tolerance for child sexual exploitation,” but there is a case where the platform refused to remove videos of two children being abused, and it took the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to step in for Twitter to remove the content. 

The Media Matters report stated that Elon Musk “has continued his rash of brand unsafe actions — including amplifying conspiracy theories, unilaterally reinstating banned accounts such as that of former President Donald Trump, courting and engaging with far-right accounts, and instituting a haphazard verification scheme that allowed extremists and scammers to purchase a blue check. This last move, in particular, opened the platform up to various fraud and brand imitations.”

There was no mention of Twitter’s new priority number one, which is the removal of child pornography from its platform. Additionally, many of these brands continued to advertise while Trump was president and active on the platform.

Comparison.

The two following lists show companies that stopped advertising when Elon Musk took over and companies whose ads were published alongside explicit and illegal content. 

Companies That Stopped Publishing Ads When Elon Musk Bought Twitter:

Advertisement
-
  1. Abbott Laboratories
  2. Allstate Corporation
  3. AMC Networks
  4. American Express Company
  5. AT&T
  6. Big Heart Petcare
  7. BlackRock, Inc.
  8. BlueTriton Brands, Inc.
  9. Boston Beer Company
  10. CA Lottery (California State Lottery)
  11. CenturyLink (Lumen Technologies, Inc.)
  12. Chanel
  13. Chevrolet
  14. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
  15. Citigroup, Inc.
  16. CNN
  17. Dell
  18. Diageo
  19. DirecTV
  20. Discover Financial Services
  21. Fidelity
  22. First National Realty Partners
  23. Ford
  24. Heineken N.V.
  25. Hewlett-Packard (HP)
  26. Hilton Worldwide
  27. Inspire Brands, Inc.
  28. Jeep
  29. Kellogg Company
  30. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.
  31. Kyndryl
  32. LinkedIn Corporation
  33. MailChimp (The Rocket Science Group)
  34. Marriott International, Inc.
  35. Mars Petcare
  36. Mars, Incorporated
  37. Merck & Co. (Merck Sharp & Dohme MSD)*
  38. Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.)
  39. MoneyWise (Wise Publishing, Inc.)
  40. Nestle
  41. Novartis AG
  42. Pernod Ricard
  43. PlayPass
  44. The Coca-Cola Company
  45. The Kraft Heinz Company
  46. Tire Rack
  47. Verizon
  48. Wells Fargo
  49. Whole Foods Market IP
  50. Yum! Brands

 

Brands whose ads Twitter promoted alongside CSE Content. 

There were over 30 brands affected, and the following list is just some of the brands that were reported to be affected. 

  • Dyson
  • Mazda
  • Forbes
  • Walt Disney
  • NBC Universal
  • Coca-Cola
  • Cole Haan
  • a children’s hospital 
  • PBS Kids

A spokesperson for both Disney and Coca-Cola spoke out against Twitter promoting their ads alongside the CSE content, yet NBCUniversal confirmed that it asked Twitter to remove the ads associated with the content.

David Maddocks, brand president at Cole Haan, told Reuters that either Twitter fixes this or Cole Haan would do so, including by not buying Twitter ads. Mazda USA also said it would be prohibiting its ads from appearing on Twitter profile pages. 

Although a handful of brands were upset over Twitter’s promoting ads along CSE, many of those brands that quit Twitter following Elon Musk’s acquisition were advertising up until recently. This includes both brands who had their content promoted alongside child pornography as well as those who didn’t.

For all of these brands who continued to advertise despite Twitter’s problem with CSE, the question remains: is advertising with Elon Musk worse than alongside the exploitation of children?

This is a question Eliza Bleu had for General Motors when the automaker first suspended its campaign after Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform. Bleu is one of Twitter’s toughest critics who, up until recently, Twitter ignored. Elon Musk agrees with Bleu that CSE should be removed from the platform and has made it priority number one.

Advertisement
-

“Twitter has a long history of knowingly refusing to remove child sexual abuse material at scale. This issue has been covered by the corporate media and called out by governments around the globe.”

“Over 32 brands removed ads from Twitter when the Reuters pieces came out in September of this year because of child sexual abuse material on Twitter. I think that General Motors’ lack of concern over sexually abused children says a lot. Survivors buy cars too. There are more survivors out there than these brands might think,” Bleu told Teslarati in October.

Bleu told Teslarati on Sunday that these brands only care about the world’s most vulnerable when it is politically advantageous.

“Where was the outrage, pearl-clutching, and solidarity for the minor survivors sexually exploited on Twitter over the past 10+ years?”

Advertisement
-

“These brands only care about the world’s most vulnerable when it’s politically advantageous. They only care about the vulnerable populations who buy products, vote, and have money. It’s manipulative and gaslighting.”

“Thank you to the brands who took a stand against Twitter in September over this very real crime. My hope is that under the new leadership, the platform will continue to prioritize the removal of child sexual exploitation, and the brands that left in September can return knowing that specific issue will not negatively impact their brand as well as children around the globe.”

The question remains: Which is worse for Twitter advertisers: child sexual exploitation or Elon Musk?

Your feedback is welcome. 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 at @JohnnaCrider1.

Teslarati is now on TikTok. Follow us for interactive news & more. Teslarati is now on TikTok. Follow us for interactive news & more. You can also follow Teslarati on LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

 

Advertisement
-

Johnna Crider is a Baton Rouge writer covering Tesla, Elon Musk, EVs, and clean energy & supports Tesla's mission. Johnna also interviewed Elon Musk and you can listen here

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Grok Bot users hit with weekly limits early, Elon Musk explains what happened

Published

on

Credit: Grok Bot

Elon Musk said weeks ago during SpaceX’s third-quarter earnings call that the company’s Grok Bot, its autonomous AI Agent platform, was showing “the fastest growth of a product” that he’d ever seen in his life.

Now, SpaceXSI is scaling back Grok Bot users’ weekly limits, much to the surprise of those who have relied on it to take away monotonous tasks in their lives.

Elon Musk’s terse November 1 reply on X captured a sharp tension in the early days of agentic AI. Responding to a user who asked for a Grok Bot usage reset after hitting 100 percent with four days still left on the weekly cycle, Musk wrote: “The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue.”

The post arrived amid a wave of similar complaints from paying subscribers whose meters had jumped unexpectedly toward or to the limit, sometimes overnight and with little corresponding activity. It also stood in clear contrast to statements Musk had made only days and weeks earlier.

Advertisement
-

On the SpaceX third-quarter earnings call in mid-to-late October, Musk had described Grok Bot in almost the opposite terms. He called it “the fastest growth of a product that I’ve ever seen in my life” and said he had “never seen anything grow this fast.”

Company figures put paid weekly users at roughly 800,000 earlier in the month, more than doubling over the prior period. Daily active users had climbed from under 100,000 in early September to over 600,000 by late October.

Musk emphasized that the product has no free tier and that users appear to be getting real value beyond what they pay. In other remarks, he noted that usage per user was rising rather than declining, the opposite of the usual decay pattern for new software.

Grok Bot, launched around August, functions as an always-available agent with its own persistent cloud computer; it can schedule, research, shop, browse, and execute multi-step workflows even after the user steps away. Access is bundled into X subscription tiers (roughly $30, $100, and $200 per month) and certain Cursor plans, drawing from shared weekly usage pools whose exact sizes have not been publicly detailed.

The economics of that model are what Musk’s November 1 post put in the spotlight. Agentic systems burn far more compute than ordinary chatbot exchanges. Each task can trigger repeated model calls, tool use, web actions, and sustained background work.

When growth is as rapid as Musk celebrated, the absolute compute bill scales quickly even if average revenue per user stays fixed under flat monthly subscriptions. Industry observers noted the opportunity cost as well: the same GPUs can be rented to other AI labs at higher rates.

Advertisement
-

A simple back-of-the-envelope comparison circulating after the post illustrated the gap: if every reported daily user paid the top tier, annualized subscription revenue would still be modest relative to the scale of compute infrastructure SpaceX is building and leasing to companies like Anthropic.

Some users also reported possible dashboard anomalies around the same period, though Musk’s framing treated the underlying cost-revenue imbalance as the core issue rather than a pure metering glitch.

The juxtaposition is the core of this exchange. Within roughly two weeks of publicly framing Grok Bot as an unprecedented success with strong unit economics and no free tier, Musk acknowledged that serving the same product had become unsustainable relative to the revenue it generates.

For the broader industry, the episode underscores a structural challenge of the agent era: demand is real and growing faster than many expected, yet the cost of fulfilling that demand through always-on, multi-step agents can outrun subscription pricing before companies can adjust limits, introduce metered billing, or raise prices.

Musk’s reply did not promise an immediate reset or higher allowances; it simply stated the constraint. In doing so, it supplied a rare, explicit public data point on the unit economics of a high-profile AI agent just as adoption numbers were still being celebrated as the fastest in Musk’s experience.

The tension between rapid, paid growth and the compute required to deliver it is now on the record.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading

News

Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise

Tapping Activate on Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away reportedly triggers a $539 service bill without moving.

Published

on

By

Tesla owners who press Activate on Emergency Drive Away may be on the hook for a service bill even if their car never leaves the Supercharger stall.

Yaro, who posts about Tesla service cases on X as @Tutrifour, said a customer called after tapping Activate while still plugged into a Supercharger. The owner was about to pull away, remembered the cable was still connected and stopped. The car never moved, but the touchscreen showed a red alert reading “Emergency Drive Away has been activated” with “Service is required” underneath. A Service Mode screenshot showed the active alert BMS_a228_EmergencyDriveAwayServiceRequired, which Yaro said only Tesla Service can clear.


The cost of clearing it was the bigger surprise. “Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch,” Yaro wrote.  The $539 figure comes from that single case, and Tesla has not published a set price for the inspection or commented on the post. Yaro also noted that the car would still charge with the alert on screen.

Tesla launched Emergency Drive Away on October 1 with software update 2026.38.3, letting drivers pull away from a U.S. Supercharger with the cable still attached, as Teslarati reported. To use it, a driver shifts into Drive while connected, holds the brake and taps Activate. The prompt warns that driving with the cable connected will damage the vehicle and the Supercharger, and that short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.

Tesla Charging has been clear about what follows a real activation. Repairs to a Supercharger stall can run up to $25,000 depending on the site, a service visit for the car’s charge port is mandatory, and deliberate misuse “will invoke additional penalties.” What the company had not spelled out is that the service requirement is triggered the moment Activate is pressed, not the moment the cable breaks away.

Advertisement
-

From an engineering standpoint, that is the cautious choice. Once Activate is pressed, the car cannot be sure the charge port latch was not stressed, so flagging it for inspection removes the guesswork. It also means the button carries a price on its own, which is a stronger deterrent against casual use than any warning screen.


The report follows the feature’s first known real world use, when a driver in Austin during F1 weekend appeared to trigger it by accident and dragged the Supercharger cable along with the car. The Reddit user who filmed it said the driver seemed to have only half read the prompts.

For owners, the takeaway is to treat the red prompt as a stop sign. If it appears after shifting out of Park by mistake, shift back and unplug the normal way from the touchscreen, the Tesla app or the button on the charge handle. Activate is meant for moments when staying at the stall is the bigger risk, and Tesla is now pricing it that way.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk calls Earth’s data centers “peanuts” next to what SpaceX is planning in orbit

Elon Musk says SpaceX capex efficiency is underestimated as orbital data centers loom by 2028.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk is pushing back on one of the biggest worries hanging over SpaceX stock. In a reply on X on Sunday, Musk said the company’s capital expenditure efficiency is severely underestimated. He was responding to a Milk Road Stocks post citing analyst Kyle Reidhead, who estimates SpaceX will need to spend roughly $470 billion over the next five quarters.

Reidhead built that figure around the target SpaceX set on its third quarter earnings call: 13 gigawatts or more of compute by the end of 2027. In his breakdown, Nvidia captures 83 to 89 percent of the spending. SpaceX ended the quarter with 1.7 GW of nameplate compute and guided to $35 billion to $40 billion in fourth quarter capex, as Teslarati reported.

Musk did not attach a number to his claim, but the earnings call shows the argument. CFO Bret Johnsen said new compute currently pays for itself in under a year at today’s pricing, and Musk said that window could shrink to six months next year. Using that pace, Reidhead argues about $230 billion of the $470 billion could come from operating cash flow and about $60 billion from SpaceX’s roughly $90 billion cash pile, leaving around $180 billion to borrow. Musk confirmed last week that SpaceX had already closed a new $40 billion debt raise to buy GPUs.

The ground buildout is not the end goal. It is what is meant to pay for the move to orbit. Replying on Friday to charts built from Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire’s SpaceX model, Musk wrote that “Terrestrial compute will be peanuts compared to orbital compute,” adding that orbital compute deployed per month “probably exceeds terrestrial around the end of 2028 and then far exceeds it in 2029.”

Maguire’s model shows how steep that path is. It has capex climbing from $88 billion this year to $290 billion in 2027 and $369 billion in 2028, with SpaceX burning $77.8 billion in cash this year and $122.6 billion next year before turning $114.9 billion cash positive in 2028. Musk’s response to the model was, “I think we can do better.”

Advertisement
-

The orbital half runs through Starmind. SpaceX plans to operate up to 1 million AI satellites flying in clusters of about 10, linked by roughly 10 terabits of bandwidth, with deployment of thousands of units starting as soon as late 2027 out of its Gigasat factory in Bastrop, Texas, according to SpaceX’s space safety page. Musk has said each Starmind spacecraft will carry more than 250 kW of solar power.

Getting there depends on launch volume. Maguire’s model assumes 250 Starship flights in 2028, up from two this year and 38 next year. The nearer test is financial: SpaceX guided to $33 billion to $37 billion in first quarter 2027 revenue, more than double the $14.58 billion it booked in Q3, and Musk reposted that guidance again on Sunday morning.

Continue Reading