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

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’

Published

on

Credit: Lucid

Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.

The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.

The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Lucid denies rumors of bankruptcy after over 40% stock drop

Advertisement

Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”

Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”

Napoli said:

“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.

Advertisement

As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.

We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.

My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.

I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”

Advertisement

It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.

Advertisement

Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.

Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.

The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.

One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.

These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.

To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.

At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.

Advertisement

Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line

By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.

The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.

Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

Advertisement

It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.

The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.

In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.

Advertisement
Continue Reading