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.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
