News
Trafficking survivor has a hard question for Twitter advertisers pausing ads over Elon Musk acquisition
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter has finally come to a close, and as he takes charge of the platform, some advertisers aren’t too happy. Citing his love for humanity, Elon Musk wrote a letter to Twitter’s advertisers emphasizing the importance of ad relevancy on Thursday.
On Friday, General Motors paused its Twitter ad spending once Elon Musk completed his takeover of the platform. Although GM is a competitor of Tesla, another company owned by Elon Musk, Tesla doesn’t pay any platform for advertising.
This news prompted human trafficking survivor advocate, Eliza Bleu, to ask GM and any other advertiser considering leaving Twitter one hard question.
“Is advertising with Elon Musk worse than with child sexual abuse material?”
In September, Twitter told advertisers found ads on profiles linked with child sex abuse. Business Insider viewed those emails sent and reported that Twitter banned accounts for violating its rules. The publication noted that some advertisers were told that Twitter suspended all ads on profiles and that it had “updated its systems” in order to detect better accounts linked to child sexual abuse material or CSAM.
Twitter told Insider that it’s working with its product teams to ensure it has the right models, processes, and products in place to help keep everyone using Twitter safe, which, in the cases of John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, don’t seem to be true. John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 are two male minors who begged Twitter to remove videos of their sexual exploitation. Twitter refused to pull down the content.
Screenshot from the lawsuit
Eliza Bleu pointed out that Twitter still hasn’t solved the CSAM problem after the ad issue. “The employees knew about the problem before the issue with the ads,” she told Teslarati. She pointed to a recent case reported by the Northampton Chronicle & Echo on Thursday.
In this case, a 22-year-old man pled guilty to three counts of making indecent photographs of children and two counts of attempting to engage in sexual communication with children. There were three Twitter accounts that shared indecent images and videos of children. The defendant was also having conversations of a sexual nature with a 13- and 14-year-old.
Eliza Bleu also pointed out that Delhi Police’s Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations blocked 23 Twitter accounts for sharing CSAM in September, as well as one in Naples, where a man was arrested with over 100 child pornography charges. The man transmitted multiple child pornography files from his Twitter and Snapchat accounts to other users.
In September, Andrea Stroppa, founder of Ghost Data and a former contributor to the World Economic Forum, released an exclusive report to Reuters with a list of over 500 accounts that openly shared or requested CSAM over a 20-day period in September. Stroppa also shared the report with Teslarati following the publishing of the Reuters article.
Those 500 accounts produced over 10,000 tweets, with almost half focusing on trading illicit material. The accounts accumulated over 2,000 unique followers.
In her question to GM, which goes for any company wanting to pause its ad spending due to Elon Musk taking ownership of Twitter, Eliza Bleu wanted to know if Elon Musk was truly worse than the exploitation of children.
Question @GM why didn’t you remove your ads from Twitter in September when you received an email from Twitter telling you that you paid to potentially run ads on child sexual abuse material imagery?
Is @elonmusk worse than child sexual abuse material?
— 𝔈𝔩𝔦𝔷𝔞 (@elizableu) October 29, 2022
Eliza told Teslarati that she is also concerned about the narratives that could be created and pushed. Narratives such as Elon Musk, the ongoing lawsuit against Twitter by John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, and CSAM on Twitter in general. There’s already a lot of misinformation about Elon Musk, and it would be easy for this topic to be weaponized against Elon Musk now that he has taken over Twitter.
These are the words that John Doe #1 said to Twitter after they refused to pull down the two male minors sexual exploitation.
The survivors were both 13 in the video. pic.twitter.com/iI6XgAmhGu
— 𝔈𝔩𝔦𝔷𝔞 (@elizableu) April 10, 2021
“Two minors are currently suing Twitter. If Elon does indeed take over Twitter and acquire Twitter, unfortunately, part of the baggage he’s going to acquire is this lawsuit. Of course, the lawsuit won’t be against him personally. It’ll be against Twitter,” Eliza said in a recent video.
Eliza has publicly offered Elon Musk and the new Twitter leadership. She’s willing to work with X (Twitter) to remove CSAM at scale. “I offered to work for free,” she said in a tweet.
In a statement to Teslarati, Eliza Bleu reaffirmed her offer to Elon Musk and the new leadership team at Twitter.
“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.”
Your feedback is essential. 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.
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
