Twitter board agrees to $44 billion sale to billionaire Tesla founder Elon Musk

[Lord Revan]

He also doesn't seem to understand that the rest of the planet are not his servants or, outside of his companies, in any way subject to his whims and will.

It always blows my mind how much people - like Elon Musk and Donald Trump and similar - seem to feel that the world _owes_ them success.

Well that mindset seems fairly common with those who are second or third generation (or later) rich, the idea "my daddy was successful so I'm owed success", it's probably that they can't really grasp not living in luxury but know that they need success to do that.

[Ralin]

There's something Wong posted once that always stuck with me. We all know Mike is a really engaged father and he said he was active in his kids' school PTA. And his kids went to public school, but it was a really good public school so some of the other parents were pretty affluent. And he said that one thing he's always noticed is that the affluent parents always thought they should have more of a say in deciding things like events and activities. And he said he wouldn't even really mind it that much if they were kicking in more money to the school to pay for it. But they weren't. They just seemed to believe that sort of thing was there due for being rich.

[bilateralrope]

App That Creates Fake Nudes For Blackmail Allowed to Advertise on X

Disturbing invasion of privacy apps are totally fine to advertise in Elon Musk's world
Troy MatthewsUpdated:Dec 14, 2023Original:Dec 14, 2023

An app called DeepNudeAI, which allows users to upload real photos of women and then creates a fake AI generated image of them nude is currently advertising on X, formerly known as Twitter. The service is being promoted by an X user who goes by Марина and the handle @Marina247016199.

The app is part of new series of privacy invasion AI apps called "undressing apps" that create deep-faked nudes. In the new reality of AI, anything from speech to body can be faked in a strikingly realistic way, capable of fooling everyone but the most savvy or trained eyes.

Undressing apps allow users to customize the nude they receive, including changing the age of the victim in the image to make them look underaged.

The potential use of deep-faked nudes for blackmail and reputation destruction represents a new disturbing trend in an AI world that is already a new frontier of antisocial behavior. It represents a disturbing invasion of privacy without legal precedent. And this particular advertisement appears to view blackmailing women as the number one use case of the application.

In a mock text message conversation depicted on the ad, an individual texts a woman a picture of an AI generated nude photo. The woman replies, "how did you get it? please don't show her picture to Stan, I'll do anything."

The DeepNudeAI ad is appearing in X feeds organically, meaning users are seeing this advertising without requesting it or engaging in related content. In other words, these types of ads are being algorithmically promoted by X.

As of the writing of this article, the advertisement has been viewed 42.8K times.

Users of X appeared utterly appalled by the ad. One user replied, "Whoever made that needs to be locked up."

Another wrote, "This is the most terrifying fucking thing I’ve ever seen."

One individual chimed in, "Promoting blackmail is wild ngl."

While legitimate advertisers flee the social media platform, seedy underworld apps are now creeping their way into X, which is used for discourse and news all over the world.

Update 7:30PM PT:

An account on X called @MattTalksBall apparently reported the original account posting the DeepNudeAI ad and received a note that the ad hadn't broken X's safety policies. Confirming that invasion of privacy apps used for blackmailing women are not a violation of X standards and apparently completely free to advertise on X.

That's a new low for Musk.

Sadly it's not a surprise.

[Ralin]

That's a new low for Musk.

Sadly it's not a surprise.

Has he commented on it? He may be responsible for it being allowed, but that doesn't mean he made a decision to let them advertise or even knew they existed.

[Solauren]

Yeah, no matter how much he wants it, or is trying to make it look, I doubt ever single decision goes through Musk now.

Given some of the stuff I've seen with AI, this happening is not a surprise. It could already be done with the right combination of apps and filters. This is just an faster then current methods.

[PainRack]

Yeah, no matter how much he wants it, or is trying to make it look, I doubt ever single decision goes through Musk now.

Given some of the stuff I've seen with AI, this happening is not a surprise. It could already be done with the right combination of apps and filters. This is just an faster then current methods.

The problem is the ad content which promotes blackmail......

[Solauren]

Yeah, no matter how much he wants it, or is trying to make it look, I doubt ever single decision goes through Musk now.

Given some of the stuff I've seen with AI, this happening is not a surprise. It could already be done with the right combination of apps and filters. This is just an faster then current methods.

The problem is the ad content which promotes blackmail......

...

Ah.

[bilateralrope]

That's a new low for Musk.

Sadly it's not a surprise.

Has he commented on it? He may be responsible for it being allowed, but that doesn't mean he made a decision to let them advertise or even knew they existed.

If Musk disagrees, he can overrule whoever said that the ad can stay. Otherwise he does not get any benefit of the doubt for the things his company does.

[PainRack]

That's a new low for Musk.

Sadly it's not a surprise.

Has he commented on it? He may be responsible for it being allowed, but that doesn't mean he made a decision to let them advertise or even knew they existed.

If Musk disagrees, he can overrule whoever said that the ad can stay. Otherwise he does not get any benefit of the doubt for the things his company does.

Musk fired the human moderators.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk- ... oderators/

The argument was Musk genius & algorithms could do their job and it definitely can't.

[bilateralrope]

Musk fired the human moderators.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk- ... oderators/

The argument was Musk genius & algorithms could do their job and it definitely can't.

Maybe he hired some human moderators since then. Maybe not. I don't think it matters in this case.

What matters is that He's in charge of the company. He doesn't have the luxury of neutrality over anything X/Twitter does, especially when it appears consistent with other moderation decisions he's made.

[bilateralrope]

EU takes action against Elon Musk's X over disinformation

3 hours ago

By Tom Singleton
Technology reporter, BBC News

The European Union has formally announced it suspects X, previously known as Twitter, of breaching its rules in areas including countering illegal content and disinformation.

Digital commissioner Thierry Breton set out the alleged infringements in a post on the social media platform.

He said X, which is owned by Elon Musk, was also suspected of breaching its obligations on transparency.

X said it was "co-operating with the regulatory process".

In a statement the firm said it was "important that this process remains free of political influence and follows the law".

"X is focused on creating a safe and inclusive environment for all users on our platform, while protecting freedom of expression, and we will continue to work tirelessly towards this goal," it added.

These are the first formal proceedings launched under the Digital Services Act (DSA), the tough new rules for big tech firms the EU has introduced.

The DSA places extra obligations on major companies to protect users against extreme content. If they fail to do so they can face enormous fines or be suspended.

"Today, we opened formal proceedings against X based on several suspected infringements of the Digital Services Act," EU Commission spokesman Johannes Bahrke said.

"The opening of proceedings means that the Commission will now investigate X's systems and policies related to certain suspected infringements. It does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation."

In October the EU said it was investigating X over the possible spread of terrorist and violent content, and hate speech, after Hamas' attack on Israel.

X said then that it had removed hundreds of Hamas-affiliated accounts from the platform.

Explaining the latest steps in its investigation into X on Monday, the EU said its probe would also consider the effectiveness of X's so-called Community Notes system.

It allows contributors to comment on the accuracy of posts, with the company considering it a bulwark against disinformation.

However, concerns about the nature of the content appearing on X have intensified since it was bought by Elon Musk - in part because he laid off many of its moderators - with the European Commission previously warning it had the biggest disinformation problem of any major platform.

In the US, controversy over extremist material appearing on the site has led to an advertising boycott, a bitter row between Mr Musk and a campaign group, and even questions about whether X could end up going bankrupt.

Lets see if this gets anywhere before X/Twitter runs out of money.

[Solauren]

I'm actually wondering how long until Musks stunts and the various lawsuits cause the US federal government to seize the data servers Twitter/X is on, declaring it a crime scene or something.

[Zaune]

That'll be a long time coming. There's likely to be stuff on those servers that would be highly embarrassing or worse to numerous high-level government officials, and I wouldn't put it past Dilbert Stark to accidentally-on-purpose leak the whole lot in a fit of pique when he received the subpoena.

[bilateralrope]

That'll be a long time coming. There's likely to be stuff on those servers that would be highly embarrassing or worse to numerous high-level government officials, and I wouldn't put it past Dilbert Stark to accidentally-on-purpose leak the whole lot in a fit of pique when he received the subpoena.

Wouldn't that be a GDPR violation ?

Not that it would stop him.

Or maybe he might try blackmail. If he can find something that he thinks is damaging enough to use.

[bilateralrope]

Pettiness Personified: Tesla Removes Disney+ From Vehicles Because Elon’s Mad At Disney

from the touch-grass-man dept
Wed, Dec 20th 2023 12:02pm - Mike Masnick

One of the big, usually misleading, complaints about content moderation is that it’s done out of personal animus or whims, rather than a focus on actually making it so people stop being jackasses on platforms. Indeed over and over again you hear stories about some content moderation decision that people assert way too much thought into why it happened, when the answer is often some overworked content moderator (possibly halfway around the world) with a giant stack of posts to review made a decision in five seconds and moved onto the next one.

This was some of the impetus behind Elon Musk purchasing Twitter — that false belief that Twitter moderation had been “infected by the woke mind virus” or some stupid nonsense like that. The reality was that Musk has never understood content moderation or how it works. And, yet, since taking over Twitter, which is now ExTwitter, he’s regularly done exactly what he claimed he was taking over the company to stop.

This isn’t quite the same thing, as it’s not ExTwitter we’re talking about, but earlier this week reports came out that Disney+ had magically disappeared from Tesla’s screen UI.

Electrek heard from a source that Tesla informed Disney+ last week that it would remove its native app from the Tesla Theatre in its vehicles without giving a reason as to why.

A few days later, Tesla told Disney that it would only remove the app for Tesla owners who never used the app before.

The automaker now appears to have acted on the threat, as many Tesla owners are reporting not seeing the Disney+ app in Tesla Theatre anymore. Others, presumably those who have used the app before, are still seeing the app available in their cars.

Even sites that are strongly pro-Tesla seem to think this pettiness is stupid, explaining to people how to get Disney+ back.

This whole thing seems to stem from Elon being ridiculously thin-skinned and immature. He remains mad that Disney stopped advertising on ExTwitter, and famously told Disney’s Bob Iger to go fuck himself, before insisting that Disney’s board should fire Iger (and I thought Elon was against cancel culture? tsk tsk)

Anyway, this is the kind of childish behavior that too many people think is behind content moderation decisions, but almost never is. Except when Elon’s in charge. Which is only slightly ironic, given that he keeps insisting that he’s trying to stop that kind of moderation as being “anti-free speech” or whatever

I post this here because all the evidence is that this is Musk throwing a tantrum over Disney refusing to advertise on Twitter.

Also, aren't Tesla and Twitter meant to be separate companies ?
Back when he took over Twitter, there were reports of Tesla engineers being made to work on Twitter's code. Now we have this.

What happens if Musk mingles so much of the companies together that the courts decide that he's not running them as separate companies ?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Elon Musk’s Grok keeps making up fake news based on X users’ jokes

X's chatbot Grok is supposed to be an AI engine crunching the platform's posts to surface and summarize breaking news, but this week, Grok's flaws were once again exposed when the chatbot got confused and falsely accused an NBA star of criminal vandalism.

"Klay Thompson Accused in Bizarre Brick-Vandalism Spree," Grok's headline read in an AI-powered trending-tab post that has remained on X (formerly Twitter) for days. Beneath the headline, Grok went into even more detail to support its fake reporting:

In a bizarre turn of events, NBA star Klay Thompson has been accused of vandalizing multiple houses with bricks in Sacramento. Authorities are investigating the claims after several individuals reported their houses being damaged, with windows shattered by bricks. Klay Thompson has not yet issued a statement regarding the accusations. The incidents have left the community shaken, but no injuries were reported. The motive behind the alleged vandalism remains unclear.

Grok appears to be confusing a common basketball term, where players are said to be throwing "bricks" when they take an airball shot that doesn't hit the rim. According to SF Gate, which was one of the first outlets to report the Grok error, Thompson had an "all-time rough shooting" night, hitting none of his shots on what was his emotional last game with the Golden State Warriors before becoming an unrestricted free agent.

In small type under Grok's report, X includes a disclaimer saying, "Grok is an early feature and can make mistakes. Verify its outputs."

But instead of verifying Grok's outputs, it appeared that X users—in the service's famously joke-y spirit—decided to fuel Grok's misinformation. Under the post, X users, some NBA fans, commented with fake victim reports, using the same joke format to seemingly convince Grok that "several individuals reported their houses being damaged." Some of these joking comments were viewed by millions.

[Broomstick]

Or maybe he might try blackmail. If he can find something that he thinks is damaging enough to use.

There's this app that can make deepfake nudes....

[bilateralrope]

Elon Musk’s Grok keeps making up fake news based on X users’ jokes

You didn't quote the really fun part of that article:

Experts told Ars that it remains unclear if disclaimers like X's will spare companies from liability should more people decide to sue over fake AI outputs. Defamation claims might depend on proving that platforms "knowingly" publish false statements, which disclaimers suggest they do. Last July, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into OpenAI, demanding that the company address the FTC's fears of "false, misleading, or disparaging" AI outputs.

We are past the days of Glorbo where people manipulated news writing AI for their amusement. People can, and will, manipulate Grok into spitting out whatever they want it to say. If the disclaimer makes the resulting lawsuit worse for X/Twitter, that just drains their money faster.

[Zaune]

What really funges my tokens about Grok is that Musk has apparently read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxyand come to the conclusion that what his company's digital assistant project really needs to stand out from the crowd is Genuine People Personalities(TM).

The only person I've ever heard of who missed the point of a work of fiction so badly was someone who got mentioned in a Reddit thread years ago who read Trainspotting and decided to score some heroin to seewhat the fuss was all about.

And if we hear about Musk buying a vending machine company as his next venture then I'm going to see if Wonko the Sane can be persuaded to let out his guestroom.

[bilateralrope]

What really funges my tokens about Grok is that Musk has apparently read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxyand come to the conclusion that what his company's digital assistant project really needs to stand out from the crowd is Genuine People Personalities(TM).

The only person I've ever heard of who missed the point of a work of fiction so badly was someone who got mentioned in a Reddit thread years ago who read Trainspotting and decided to score some heroin to seewhat the fuss was all about.

And if we hear about Musk buying a vending machine company as his next venture then I'm going to see if Wonko the Sane can be persuaded to let out his guestroom.

Strangely, I've run into several people who completely missed the point of parts of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe in discussions on what Musk is doing to Twitter. Even when the idea went badly in the novel. Specifically, the Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B and the idea that nobody who wants power should be allowed to have it.

[bilateralrope]

Elon Musk calls for “criminal prosecution” of X ad boycott perpetrators

Congress accused advertisers group of colluding to tank X's revenue.
ASHLEY BELANGER - 7/12/2024, 9:28 AM

After the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary released a report accusing the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) of colluding with companies to censor conservative voices online, Elon Musk chimed in. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Musk wrote that X "has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators" behind an advertiser boycott on his platform.

"Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution," Musk wrote, leading several X users to suggest that Musk wants it to be illegal for brands to refuse to advertise on X.

Among other allegations, Congress' report claimed that GARM—which is part of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), whose members "represent roughly 90 percent of global advertising spend, or almost one trillion dollars annually"—directed advertisers to boycott Twitter shortly after Musk took over the platform.

"GARM members colluded to cut Twitter’s revenue after Elon Musk’s acquisition," the report said, further alleging that "colluding to suppress voices and views disfavored by the leading marketers at the world’s largest companies and advertising agencies is core to GARM’s founding principles."

Twitter/X's revenue tanked after Musk's takeover, with Bloomberg reporting last month that X lost almost 40 percent of revenue in the first six months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. That's worse than prior estimates last May, which put Twitter's loss around one-third of its total valuation. Ars chronicled the worst impacts of the ad boycott, including sharp drop-offs in the US, where an internal Twitter presentation leaked to The New York Times showed Twitter's ad revenue was down by as much as 59 percent "for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May" in 2023.

Last year, Musk sued other "collaborators" in the X boycott, including hate speech researchers, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and Media Matters for America (MMFA). However, his suit against the CCDH was dismissed this March, and Media Matters has claimed that Musk filing his MMFA lawsuit in Texas may be "fatal" because of a jurisdictional defect.

Now, it seems that Musk could be considering suing GARM next. Although his post does not mention GARM, it quotes a post sharing Congressional testimony from The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro. As Shapiro sees it, GARM's censorship standards are allegedly too high because "GARM doesn't draw the line at what is criminal, abusive, or dangerous." It also restricts "hate speech, harassment, misinformation," and "insensitive, irresponsible, and harmful treatment of debated, sensitive social issues," such as misgendering.

X had previously severed ties with GARM, but just renewed its membership July 1. In a post on X, the platform's Safety account said, "We’re excited to announce that X has reinstated our relationship" with GARM. "X is committed to the safety of our global town square and proud to be part of the GARM community!"

As of this writing, X is still listed as a GARM member, which was a move publicly supported by X CEO Linda Yaccarino, who reposted the Support team's post on her X account. There is no telling yet if Yaccarino's seeming support of GARM may strain her relationship with Musk, who has parted ways with several X executives during his reign over content moderation conflicts.

The Committee on the Judiciary reported that GARM may be violating the Sherman Act, which "makes unreasonable restraints of trade illegal," including certain cases when "group boycotts and coordinated actions" harm consumers.

GARM allegedly harmed consumers by wielding its "tremendous market power in the advertising industry" and "eliminating a variety of content and viewpoints available to consumers." This allegedly worked to "rob consumers of choices" and "is likely illegal under the antitrust laws," in addition to threatening "fundamental American freedoms," the committee's report said.

According to the report, "the high market share of GARM and its members in advertising campaigns and spending, combined with the direct evidence of demonetizing certain viewpoints to limit consumer choice," allegedly "meet the initial burden of demonstrating harm to consumers."

"The information uncovered to date of WFA and GARM’s collusive conduct to demonetize disfavored content is alarming," the committee concluded, vowing to "continue its investigation into the companies that participate in this conduct to inform potential legislative reforms."

GARM’s response to Congress’ report

GARM told Ars that it "has continually demonstrated that it will cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee in good faith."

The committee's report "does not include the 168-page transcribed interview which effectively clarifies questions on GARM’s adherence to competition law policy and practices, that GARM is a voluntary organization, and that guidance from GARM is non-binding," GARM said.

"We remain steadfast in the conviction that GARM enhances transparency in previously opaque practices relative to ad placements in digital social media," GARM said. "GARM creates voluntary industry standards on brand safety and suitability which media sellers and ad tech companies can voluntarily adopt, adapt or reject. This in turn allows advertisers to make choices similar to the way they buy advertising in TV, print or radio. GARM’s work focuses on voluntary monetization standards while establishing voluntary steps to improve transparency on content moderation and platform design."

GARM confirmed that it will continue to cooperate with the House committee as it continues its investigation but denied allegations of misconduct raised against GARM and WFA.

"In consultation with legal counsel, WFA maintains robust and effective compliance policies designed to enhance competition," GARM told Ars. "These policies, along with other materials and information provided to the House Judiciary Committee corroborates that GARM has been diligent in always driving a voluntary and pro-competitive approach and that the allegations against GARM for anti-competitive behavior are baseless."

X recently rejoined GARM

When Musk first named Yaccarino as CEO, right-wing Twitter users expressed fears that she might return Twitter to its enthusiastic content moderation roots rather than support Musk's vision of allowing all legal speech on his platform, The Washington Post reported. Those users fretted that "Yaccarino is an executive chair of the World Economic Forum, an organization they view as one of the roots of all evil in the world," BBC journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh tweeted at the time.

This week, some X users revived those claims, joking that Musk may have to sue Yaccarino among "collaborators" in the boycott due to her ties with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and support for GARM, which is a flagship partner of WEF.

Yaccarino has spent much of her tenure as CEO wooing back advertisers spooked off by reported spikes in hate speech on Twitter, as well as a tweet from Musk condemned by the White House as antisemitic. The controversy reached a boiling point when Musk told advertisers to "go f*ck yourselves," a comment which Musk has recently attempted to walk back, The Hill reported last month.

However, Yaccarino did not seem to be pushing for X to rejoin GARM until recently, and it's unclear how X's content moderation practices may have changed since renewing its membership.

Previously when Twitter was a GARM member, it made several commitments regarding brand safety, a 2022 GARM blog detailed. Among these commitments, Twitter said that it would adopt GARM metrics to flag harmful content that should not be monetized and increase transparency to help GARM assess "platform safety and advertising suitability." Twitter also agreed to "regularly report on the prevalence and reach of harmful content on the platform to ensure that the platform is safe for consumers."

It's possible that X might take similar steps as a current GARM member, but Ars could not immediately reach X for comment.

Congress: It’s not illegal to boycott X

In the House committee's report, lawmakers clarified that each advertiser "could legally choose to independently withhold advertising from any platform or news outlet it chooses."

However, a single brand boycotting X wouldn't have the impact that GARM allegedly sought, Congress claimed. "What these corporations could not achieve unilaterally" to "silence conservative views," they "have worked extensively since 2019 to achieve by coordinating through GARM," the report alleged.

Even if GARM has "good intentions" in advising brands to hold off on X advertising, "federal antitrust laws do not diminish," lawmakers claimed.

If antitrust law doesn't apply in this case, legal reforms may be necessary to intervene between GARM and online platforms, Congress wrote, alleging that "GARM has no intention of limiting its censorship to existing technologies."

Lawmakers' biggest fear is that GARM's alleged overreach will be amplified by applying its strict monetization standards through "technologies in their infancy such as generative AI and the metaverse."

"GARM’s partners are developing AI tools that will integrate GARM’s standards seamlessly across social media platforms," the committee's report warned. "Such an automated censorship effort could result in the demonetization of any views or voices that GARM’s advertising cartel dislikes, potentially without any human involvement at all. Such concentrated market power is dangerous, and the implications of AI technology on advertising censorship are frightening."

In the transcript of GARM co-founder Rob Rakowitz's testimony to the House committee reviewed by Ars, Rakowitz said GARM "brings together marketers, agencies, platforms, and industry groups to remove advertising support from harmful content in digital social media" and has "strict processes in place to ensure that we comply with relevant antitrust laws."

"Our goal is to create more transparency and competitiveness in the marketplace by developing voluntary industry standards through an inclusive and open process," Rakowitz said. "GARM is apolitical in its work and our membership approach is nondiscriminatory. We are not a watchdog. We are not a lobby. We do not boycott, and we do not collude."

Musk is still throwing a tantrum over companies not wanting to advertise alongside the neo-Nazi posts he wants to keep on X. But now he's got Republicans in Congress on his side.

[bilateralrope]

Elon Musk’s X faces big EU fines as paid checkmarks are ruled deceptive

Paid "verification" deceives X users and violates Digital Services Act, EU says.
JON BRODKIN - 7/13/2024, 2:52 AM

Elon Musk's overhaul of the Twitter verification system deceives users and violates the Digital Services Act, the European Commission said today in an announcement of preliminary findings that could lead to a big financial penalty.

The social media platform now called X "designs and operates its interface for the 'verified accounts' with the 'Blue checkmark' in a way that does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users," the EU regulator said. "Since anyone can subscribe to obtain such a 'verified' status, it negatively affects users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with. There is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing the 'verified account' to deceive users."

Blue checkmarks "used to mean trustworthy sources of information," Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton said. The EC said it "informed X of its preliminary view that it is in breach of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in areas linked to dark patterns, advertising transparency and data access for researchers."

X will have an opportunity to respond in writing. If the preliminary finding is upheld, the EC said it would adopt a non-compliance decision that "could entail fines of up to 6 percent of the total worldwide annual turnover of the provider, and order the provider to take measures to address the breach."

A non-compliance decision may also "trigger an enhanced supervision period to ensure compliance with the measures the provider intends to take to remedy the breach," and "periodic penalty payments to compel a platform to comply." X is allowed to "exercise its rights of defense by examining the documents in the Commission's investigation file and by replying in writing to the Commission's preliminary findings," the announcement said.

We contacted X today and will update this article if the company provides a response to the EU findings.

Advertising and data access charges

As for the second alleged violation, the EC said that "X does not comply with the required transparency on advertising, as it does not provide a searchable and reliable advertisement repository, but instead put in place design features and access barriers that make the repository unfit for its transparency purpose towards users. In particular, the design does not allow for the required supervision and research into emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online."

Thirdly, the commission said it found that "X fails to provide access to its public data to researchers in line with the conditions set out in the DSA. In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping, as stated in its terms of service. In addition, X's process to grant eligible researchers access to its application programming interface (API) appears to dissuade researchers from carrying out their research projects or leave them with no other choice than to pay disproportionately high fees."

In December 2023, the EC announced that Musk's X platform was subject to the first formal investigation into possible DSA violations. X said at the time that it "remains committed to complying with the Digital Services Act and is cooperating with the regulatory process. It is important that this process remains free of political influence and follows the law."

With today's announcement, X is the first company to face preliminary findings of DSA non-compliance.

"The DSA has transparency at its very core, and we are determined to ensure that all platforms, including X, comply with EU legislation," said EC competition official Margrethe Vestager.

This should be fun to watch. Until X/Twitter eventually loses.

[Elfdart]

The Digital Services Act is totalitarian to its core, so good on Musk for flouting it. Extra sad fuck points for this part:

The social media platform now called X "designs and operates its interface for the 'verified accounts' with the 'Blue checkmark' in a way that does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users," the EU regulator said. "Since anyone can subscribe to obtain such a 'verified' status, it negatively affects users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with. There is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing the 'verified account' to deceive users."

Blue checkmarks "used to mean trustworthy sources of information," Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton said. The EC said it "informed X of its preliminary view that it is in breach of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in areas linked to dark patterns, advertising transparency and data access for researchers."

Anyone who takes a Twitter message as gospel just because it has a blue check next to it is so stupid you have to wonder how they can shit unassisted -and that was before Elon Schmuck started giving them out to anyone so pathetic as to pay $8 a month. It's like the pearl-clutching over "conspiracy theories". Hack journalists need fainting couches because some twitter troll or podcaster spreads crank nonsense. The problem is that just as anti-smut activists tend to be the biggest perverts, anti-"disinformation" crusaders tend to be the biggest liars and the most paranoid crackpots.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Brazil judge orders suspension of Elon Musk's X after missing legal deadline

Brazil's supreme court has ordered the suspension of Elon Musk's X after the tech billionaire refused to name a legal representative in the country.

It marks a further escalation between Musk and Justice Alexandre de Moraes over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation.

The judge warned that X could be blocked in Brazil if Musk failed to comply with his order to name a representative, and established a 24-hour deadline.

The company hasn't had a representative in the country since earlier this month.

Internet service providers and app stores have been given five days to block access to X, with the platform remaining blocked until it complies with the order.

He added in his order that people or companies using virtual private networks (VPN), to access X will be subject to daily fines of 50,000 Reais (£6,800).

“Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country,” de Moraes wrote.

Brazil represents an important market for X, which has struggled with the loss of advertisers since Musk purchased what was Twitter in 2022.

X has clashed with de Moraes over its reluctance to comply with orders to block users.

Accounts that the platform previously has shut down on Brazilian orders include lawmakers affiliated with former President Jair Bolsonaro’s right-wing party and activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy.

Musk, a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist," has repeatedly claimed the justice’s actions amount to censorship, and his argument has been echoed by Brazil’s political right.

He has often insulted de Moraes on his platform, characterising him as a dictator and tyrant.

[bilateralrope]

Elon Musk didn’t show up for testimony in a probe over his $44 billion Twitter takeover. Now the SEC wants sanctions

By Clare Duffy, CNN

Updated 5:52 PM EDT, Fri September 20, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission intends to seek sanctions against Elon Musk over his failure to appear for testimony in an investigation related to his takeover of Twitter, now called X, the regulator said in a court filing Friday.

Earlier this year, a federal judge ordered Musk to testify as part of the SEC’s probe of the billionaire’s $44 billion acquisition. The agency is examining whether Musk followed the law when disclosing his purchases of Twitter stock and whether his statements in relation to the deal were misleading.

After some initial scheduling back-and-forth, the parties had agreed that Musk would testify on September 10, and SEC lawyers flew to Los Angeles to take Musk’s testimony, according to Friday’s court filing. But three hours before his testimony was set to begin, Musk’s lawyer told the SEC that his client, who also runs SpaceX, had to urgently travel to the East Coast for the launch of the Polaris Dawn mission and would be unable to attend the testimony or reschedule to the following day, the filing states.

The two parties then struggled to find a time to reschedule the testimony before landing on a date in early October, according to the filing.

The SEC alleges that Musk violated a court order requiring that Musk “seek ‘written consent of the SEC or order of the Court’ to modify the date of his testimony,” which it says he did not do before failing to appear on September 10.

“Musk’s excuse itself smacks of gamesmanship,” the SEC said in the filing. “SpaceX had already announced that it was targeting a Tuesday morning launch two days earlier… As the company’s Chief Technical Officer, Musk surely was already aware by then that SpaceX was targeting the morning of his SEC testimony for the launch.”

It continued: “Despite this advance knowledge, Musk did not notify the SEC of his intent to attend the launch until three hours before his testimony was to begin, and after the SEC spent thousands of dollars to fly three attorneys to Los Angeles.”

Musk has previously attempted to fight efforts to testify again in the probe, saying he has already done so twice.

The SEC asked the court to impose “meaningful conditional relief” if Musk does not appear at the new October testimony date. The SEC also said it intends to file a sanctions motion against Musk to recoup its travel costs for the cancelled testimony and for other relief.

In a response filing, Musk’s lawyers argued that the “Court’s intervention is not necessary, as the parties have already agreed to a new testimony date… Mr. Musk is already under an order from this Court to appear ‘absent an emergency that (Mr. Musk) did not create and could not avoid.’”

The filing represents just the latest flare up of long-simmering tension between Musk and the SEC, which began in 2018 when the agency sued him for falsely tweeting that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private.

I wonder what Musk is going to claim when he gets asked why his presences at the Polaris Dawn launch was so important.