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

Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Published

on

elon-musk-jim-farley-tesla-ford

Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.

The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.

Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):

“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”

Advertisement

Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.

Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:

“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges

Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.

Advertisement

Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.

Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch

NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.

Published

on

By

NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.

Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.

Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.

SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket

Advertisement

Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.

The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.

The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.

Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.

Advertisement

The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Q1 Earnings: What Elon Musk and Co. will answer during the call

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is set to hold its Earnings Call for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday, and there are a lot of interesting things that are swirling around in terms of speculation from investors.

With the company’s executives, including CEO Elon Musk, answering a handful of questions that investors submit through the Say platform, fans want to know a lot of things about a lot of things.

These five questions come from Retail Investors, who are normal, everyday shareholders:

  1. When will we have the Optimus v3 reveal? When will Optimus production start, since we ended the Model S and Model X production earlier than mid-year? What’s the expected Optimus production rate exiting this year? What are the initial targeted skills?
  2. What milestones are you targeting for unsupervised FSD and Robotaxi expansion beyond Austin this year, and how will that drive recurring revenue?
  3. How will Hardware 3 cars reach Unsupervised Full Self-Driving?
  4. When do you expect Unsupervised Full Self-Driving to reach customer cars?
  5. When will Robotaxi expand past its current limited rollout?

Additionally, these are currently the three questions that are slated to be answered by Institutional Firms, which also answer a handful of questions during the call:

  1. Now that FSD has been approved in the Netherlands and is expected to launch across Europe this summer, can you discuss your Robotaxi strategy for the region?
  2. What enabled you to finish the AI5 tapeout early and were there any changes to the original vision? Last week, Elon said AI5 will go into Optimus and the Supercomputer, but one month ago said it would go into the Robotaxi. Has AI5 been dropped from the vehicle roadmap?
  3. Given the recent NHTSA incident filings, can you update us on the Robotaxi safety data? If safety validation remains the primary bottleneck, why not deploy thousands of vehicles to accelerate the removal of the safety driver?

The questions range through every current Tesla project, including FSD expansion and Optimus. However, many of the answers we will get will likely be repetitive answers we’ve heard in the past.

This is especially pertinent when the questions about when Unsupervised FSD will reach customer cars: we know Musk will say that it will happen this year. Is Tesla capable of that? Maybe. But a more transparent answer that is more revealing of a true timeline would be appreciated.

Advertisement

Hardware 3 owners are anxiously awaiting the arrival of FSD v14 Lite, which was promised to them last year for a release sometime this year.

The Earnings Call is set to take place on Wednesday at market close.

Continue Reading