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. 

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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 LinkedInTwitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

 

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

Tesla confirmed HW3 can’t do Unsupervised FSD but there’s more to the story

Tesla confirmed HW3 vehicles cannot run unsupervised FSD, replacing its free upgrade promise with a discounted trade-in.

Published

on

By

tesla autopilot

Tesla has officially confirmed that early vehicles with its Autopilot Hardware 3 (HW3) will not be capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving, while extending a path forward for legacy owners through a discounted trade-in program. The announcement came by way of Elon Musk in today’s Tesla Q1 2026 earnings call.

The history here matters. HW3 launched in April 2019, and Tesla sold Full Self-Driving packages to owners on the understanding that the hardware was sufficient for full autonomy. Some owners paid between $8,000 and $15,000 for FSD during that period. For years, as FSD’s AI models grew more demanding, HW3 vehicles fell progressively further behind, eventually landing on FSD v12.6 in January 2025 while AI4 vehicles moved to v13 and then v14. When Musk acknowledged in January 2025 that HW3 simply could not reach unsupervised operation, and alluded to a difficult hardware retrofit.

Advertisement

The near-term offering is more concrete. Tesla’s head of Autopilot Ashok Elluswamy confirmed on today’s call that a V14-lite will be coming to HW3 vehicles in late June, bringing all the V14 features currently running on AI4 hardware. That is a meaningful software update for owners who have been frozen at v12.6 for over a year, and it represents genuine effort to keep older hardware relevant. Unsupervised FSD for vehicles is now targeted for Q4 2026 at the earliest, with Musk describing it as a gradual, geography-limited rollout.

For HW3 owners, the over-the-air V14-lite update is welcomed, and the discounted trade-in path at least acknowledges an old obligation. What happens next with the trade-in pricing will define how this chapter ultimately gets written. If Tesla prices the hardware path fairly, acknowledges what early adopters are owed, and delivers V14-lite on the June timeline it committed to today, it has a real opportunity to convert one of the longest-running sore subjects among early adopters into a loyalty story.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla isn’t joking about building Optimus at an industrial scale: Here we go

Tesla’s Optimus factory in Texas targets 10 million robots yearly, with 5.2 million square feet under construction.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s Q1 2026 Update Letter, released today, confirms that first generation Optimus production lines are now well underway at its Fremont, California factory, with a pilot line targeting one million robots per year to start. Of bigger note is a shared aerial image of a large piece of land adjacent to Gigafactory Texas, that Tesla has prominently labeled “Optimus factory site preparation.”

Permit documents show Tesla is seeking to add over 5.2 million square feet of new building space to the Giga Texas North Campus by the end of 2026, at an estimated construction investment of $5 billion to $10 billion. The longer term production target for that facility is 10 million Optimus units per year. Giga Texas already sits on 2,500 acres with over 10 million square feet of existing factory floor, and the North Campus expansion is being built to support multiple projects, including the dedicated Optimus factory, the Terafab chip fabrication facility (a joint Tesla/SpaceX/xAI venture), a Cybercab test track, road infrastructure, and supporting facilities.

Credit: TESLA

Texas makes strategic sense beyond the existing infrastructure. The state’s tax structure, lower labor costs relative to California, and the proximity to Tesla’s AI training cluster Cortex 1 and 2, both located at Giga Texas and now totaling over 230,000 H100 equivalent GPUs, means the Optimus software stack and the factory producing the hardware will share the same campus. Tesla’s Q1 report also confirmed completion of the AI5 chip tape out in April, the inference processor designed specifically to power Optimus units in the field.

As Teslarati reported, the Texas facility is intended to house Optimus V4 production at full scale. Musk told the World Economic Forum in January that Tesla plans to sell Optimus to the public by end of 2027 at a price between $20,000 and $30,000, stating, “I think everyone on earth is going to have one and want one.” He has previously pegged long term demand for general purpose humanoid robots at over 20 billion units globally, citing both consumer and industrial use cases.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla (TSLA) Q1 2026 earnings results: beat on EPS and revenues

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) reported its earnings for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday afternoon. Here’s what the company reported compared to what Wall Street analysts expected.

The earnings results come after Tesla reported a miss on vehicle deliveries for the first quarter, delivering 358,023 vehicles and building 408,386 cars during the three-month span.

As Tesla transitions more toward AI and sees itself as less of a car company, expectations for deliveries will begin to become less of a central point in the consensus of how the quarter is perceived.

Nevertheless, Tesla is leaning on its strong foundation as a car company to carry forward its AI ambitions. The first quarter is a good ground layer for the rest of the year.

Advertisement

Tesla Q1 2026 Earnings Results

Tesla’s Earnings Results are as follows:

  • Non-GAAP EPS – $0.41 Reported vs. $0.36 Expected
  • Revenues – $22.387 billion vs. $22.35 billion Expected
  • Free Cash Flow – $1.444 billion
  • Profit – $4.72 billion

Tesla beat analyst expectations, so it will be interesting to see how the stock responds. IN the past, we’ve seen Tesla beat analyst expectations considerably, followed by a sharp drop in stock price.

On the same token, we’ve seen Tesla miss and the stock price go up the following trading session.

Tesla will hold its Q1 2026 Earnings Call in about 90 minutes at 5:30 p.m. on the East Coast. Remarks will be made by CEO Elon Musk and other executives, who will shed some light on the investor questions that we covered earlier this week.

You can stream it below. Additionally, we will be doing our Live Blog on X and Facebook.

Advertisement

Continue Reading