Category Archives: Elon Musk

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the Settings & Account section.

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the Settings & Account section. If youd like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many users needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

Link:

Elon Musk's X still needs the 'legacy media' he so resents - Financial Times

X closed its Australian office after Elon Musk's buyout

An Australian regulator has fined Elon Musk's social media platform X A$610,500 ($386,000) for failing to cooperate with a probe into anti-child abuse practices, a blow to a company that has struggled to keep advertisers amid complaints it is going soft on moderating content. The e-Safety Commission fined X, the platform Mr Musk rebranded from Twitter, saying it failed to respond to questions including how long it took to respond to reports of child abuse material on the platform and the methods it used to detect it.

Though small compared to the $44 billion Mr Musk paid for the website in October 2022, the fine is a reputational hit for a company that has seen a continuous revenue decline as advertisers cut spending on a platform that has stopped most content moderation and reinstated thousands of banned accounts.

Most recently the EU said it was investigating X for potential violation of its new tech rules after the platform was accused of failing to rein in disinformation in relation to Hamas's attack on Israel.

"If you've got answers to questions, if you're actually putting people, processes and technology in place to tackle illegal content at scale, and globally, and if it's your stated priority, it's pretty easy to say," Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said in an interview.

"The only reason I can see to fail to answer important questions about illegal content and conduct happening on platforms would be if you don't have answers," added Inman Grant, who was a public policy director for X until 2016.

X closed its Australian office after Mr Musk's buyout, so there was no local representative to respond to Reuters. A request for comment sent to the San Francisco-based company's media email address was not immediately answered.

Under Australian laws that took effect in 2021, the regulator can compel internet companies to give information about their online safety practices or face a fine. If X refuses to pay the fine, the regulator can pursue the company in court, Grant said.

After taking the company private, Mr Musk said in a post that "removing child exploitation is priority #1". But the Australian regulator said that when it asked X how it prevented child grooming on the platform, X responded that it was "not a service used by large numbers of young people".

X told the regulator available anti-grooming technology was "not of sufficient capability or accuracy to be deployed on Twitter".

Inman Grant said the commission also issued a warning to Alphabet's Google for noncompliance with its request for information about handling of child abuse content, calling the search engine giant's responses to some questions "generic". Google said it had cooperated with the regulator and was disappointed by the warning.

"We remain committed to these efforts and collaborating constructively and in good faith with the e-Safety Commissioner, government and industry on the shared goal of keeping Australians safer online," said Google's director of government affairs and public policy for Australia, Lucinda Longcroft.

X's noncompliance was more serious, the regulator said, including failure to answer questions about how long it took to respond to reports of child abuse, steps it took to detect child abuse in livestreams and its numbers of content moderation, safety and public policy staff.

The company confirmed to the regulator that it had cut 80% of its workforce globally and has no public policy staff in Australia, compared to two before Mr Musk's takeover.

X told the regulator its proactive detection of child abuse material in public posts dropped after Mr Musk took the company private.

The company told the regulator it did not use tools to detect the material in private messages because "the technology is still in development", the regulator said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Go here to read the rest:

Musk's X Fined $3,86,000 Over Lack Of Information On Child Abuse Content - NDTV

Australias online safety watchdog said X provided no answers to some questions including how many staff remained on the trust and safety team that worked on preventing harmful and illegal content.

Australias online safety watchdog has fined X - the social media platform formerly known as Twitter - 610,500 Australian dollars (366,742) for failing to fully explain how it tackled child sexual exploitation content.

The countrys eSafety Commission describes itself as the worlds first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online.

The commission issued legal transparency notices early this year to X and other platforms questioning what they were doing to tackle a proliferation of child sexual exploitation, sexual extortion and the livestreaming of child sexual abuse.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said X and Google had not complied with the notices because both companies had failed to adequately respond to a number of questions.

The platform renamed X by its new owner Elon Musk was the worst offender, providing no answers to some questions including how many staff remained on the trust and safety team that worked on preventing harmful and illegal content since Musk took over, Inman Grant said.

I think theres a degree of defiance there, she said.If youve got a basic HR system or payroll, youll know how many people are on each team."

After Musk completed his acquisition of the company in October last year, he drastically cut costs and shed thousands of jobs.

X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

X could challenge the fine in the Australian Federal Court. But the court could impose a fine of up to AU$780,000 (468,512) per day since March when the commission first found the platform had not complied with the transparency notice.

The commission would continue to pressure X through notices to become more transparent, Inman Grant said, adding:They can keep stonewalling and well keep fining them."

The commission issued Google with a formal warning for providing generic responses to specific questions, a statement said.

Google regional director Lucinda Longcroft said the company had developed a range of technologies to proactively detect, remove and report child sexual abuse material.

Protecting children on our platforms is the most important work we do, Longcroft said in a statement. Since our earliest days, we have invested heavily in the industrywide fight to stop the spread of child sexual abuse material, she added.

Go here to read the rest:

X (formerly Twitter) fined for failing to tackle child abuse content - Euronews

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

See the article here:

Elon Musk's Tesla just got into a weird new business: selling beer - The Albany Herald

US regulators are again taking Elon Musk to court, and hes not pleased. Musk, who has previously complained of harassment from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), responded to the latest episode by saying a comprehensive overhaul of such agencies is sorely needed and that punitive action should be taken against those who have abused their regulatory power for personal and political gain.

This victimisation lark goes down well with Musks base, but his ire is misplaced.

Among the SECs complaints is that Musk, when building a position in Twitter before last years takeover, failed to heed laws stating that investors who accumulate more than 5 per cent of a companys stock must disclose their position within 10 days. Does this really matter?

Well, yes. Shares soared after Musks Twitter position was eventually revealed; anyone who sold in the days before his belated disclosure can credibly argue they missed out on profits by selling at artificially low prices.

[Elon Musk: The confusing, bizarre life of a risk-seeking billionaire]

[Elon Musks vision for free speech on X tested by Israel-Hamas war misinformation]

Exasperated regulators are right to insist that the same rules apply to everyone even Musk.

Originally posted here:

Elon Musk angry as he falls foul of US regulators again - The Irish Times

Twitter has never been the most popular social media platform. Its never been the coolest, its never had the most features, and its never been the biggest moneymaker. It has, at times, been the weirdest, and many groups given to high-velocity posting have maintained valuable communities there over the years. But Twitters X factorsigh, pun intendedhas always been its strength as a platform for news.

In moments of crisis, Twitter has been essentialno more so in times of bloody conflict. Not only do professional journalists relay on-the-ground realities, but so do eyewitnesses and citizen journalists. War being war, the fruits of Twitters role as an information funnel have never been perfect. But theyve been a helpful first draft of the news.

In contrast, under the ownership of Elon Musk, who bought the platform for $44 billion last October, the platform now called X has become a vortex of false claims and doctored footage. Its a fog-of-war machine.

Thats been the unmistakable reality in the days after Hamas deadly terrorist attack on Israeli civiliansa land, air, and sea operation that has killed at least 1,200 people in Israel and led to another 900 deaths in Gaza following Israels military retaliation.

Musks changes to the foundation of how Twitter works have not only rendered Twitter useless as a means of making sense of the conflict as (or even hours after) it unfolds, but made it actively counterproductive for users trying to figure out whats going on. As Musk and Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino have rolled back the platforms rules of engagement and rid their ranks of the content-moderation teams and tools that actually keep X trustworthy, theyve also put in place a system that fundamentally incentivizes the spread of misinformation during times of mass panic and confusion, in part because X is now a platform that pays for viral content.

The end result is that Twitter, more so than any other platform right now, is fertile ground for a new kind of war profiteering.

On Oct. 8, the day after the initial Hamas attack, an account called @AGCast4 posted a video supposedly showing a Hamas rocket attack in Israel. The BBC journalist and fact-checker Shayan Sardarizadeh debunked it: The footage wasnt from the ongoing conflict or any real-life war but from the video game Arma 3. The account wasand still isverified with a blue check mark.

Two days later, the investigative outfit Bellingcat, known for its visual forensics work, had to debunk some fake news about itself. A doctored BBC video was circulating on social media, claiming that Bellingcats journalists had confirmed Ukrainian weapon sales to Hamas. Weve reached no such conclusions or made any such claims, Bellingcats official account wrote on Twitter. In a screenshot, Bellingcat showed that a Twitter account called Geopoliitics & Empire had shared the video. Like the account that posted video game footage, this account was also verified with a blue check mark. (The account owner deleted the post and called it an honest mistake, simultaneously posting a meme captioned We are going to be famous.)

If a user had taken even a yearlong hiatus from Twitter and redownloaded the app this week to follow the goings-on of the emerging war, theyd be disoriented. Why are these accounts posting nonsense, and why are they allowed to do so without any ramifications? Twitter has always had problems with the spread of misinformation, but the current site experience is noticeably degraded. So, why is that?

First, the blue check mark doesnt mean what it used to. Verification once signified that Twitter had confirmed the identity of a person or organization of note: a journalist, a public health organization, or even a professional athlete. But in April, Twitter began removing check marks from all but the most famous.

But now anyone who pays for Twitter Bluerecently renamed X Premiumcan just buy a blue check mark for $8 a month, along with the veneer that they are a notable person or a legitimate source of information. Just last week, X removed headlines from linked news articles, making the site exponentially more confusing to scroll through.

There is a difference between platforms that take steps to mitigate harm, platforms that have not yet started taking these steps, and platforms that take steps to undo processes that mitigated harm, Chinmayi Arun, the executive director of Yale Law Schools Information Society Project, told me. Users who are accustomed to a different version of X may not know how to process or understand what they are seeing now.

Its been mere days since the war broke out, but European regulators are already peeved with what theyve seen. In a posted letter to Musk, European commissioner Thierry Breton asked the X owner to comply with the continents sweeping Digital Services Act. He urged the billionaire to respond within 24 hours with assurances that hes taking the spread of illegal content and disinformation seriously or face legal penalties.

Musk responded, Our policy is that everything is open source and transparent, an approach that I know the EU supports.

Musk has delivered on a lot of what he promised. He campaigned to buy Twitter on a platform of restoring free speech, which meant loosening the sites rules, firing most of its content moderation staff, removing blue check marks from the accounts of professional journalists, and prioritizing subscription revenue over advertising.

What were seeing right now is the culmination of all of those factors: a degraded site that cant be trusted for sensitive breaking news.

There are several additional perks for paying $8 for a blue check mark. The first is that paying users now get priority placement in a tweets replies. Take a Musk tweet, for examplescroll down and itll take a while before you find any reply without a check mark next to it. (Good way for a billionaire to insulate himself from criticism, huh?) But they also get increased reach across the siteespecially on users algorithmic news feeds.

Theres another perk thats even more dangerous. In July, Musk began paying out the most engaging users on Xas long as they had bought a check mark. Twitter rewarded a number of prominent accountsmostly far-right influencers, as the Washington Post reportedwith big paychecks. Andrew Tate, a popular right-wing internet personality facing rape and human trafficking charges in Romania, received $20,000 in his first check alone.

Twitter lagged far behind other platforms that have been paying out top influencers for yearsYouTube began doing so in 2007. But the rules about who is eligible to receive payouts, and what rules they have to follow, are vague. By promising honestly very opaque parameters, said Christine Tran, a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto, the floodgates open for accounts to generate content about major events that arouses engagement without discriminationregardless of what good that information serves.

X did not respond to a request for comment, but according to its website, sensitive events, including war, are not eligible for monetization. That fine print, though, doesnt seem to stop would-be profiteers from trying, asking the platforms few remaining moderators to differentiate eligible posts from rule-breaking onesespecially since X doesnt seem to be punishing any misleading posts about war. The unclear rules about what engagement [leads to] monetization leads to See what sticks to the wall incentives to aggregate engagement, Tran said. It costs nothing to post (yet), but a viral post could lead to untold profit. Low risks, high reward.

Even if fake-news peddlers are unable to profit directly from viral posts about war, there are perks to merely being allowed to post them at all: Mass engagement like this can help an account build an audienceand from there, they can profit off future viral posts, sell stuff to their followers, and monetize their newfound following off-platform. In the creator economy, all attention can be good attention. But on X, the race for clicks is simultaneously a race to the bottom.

Twitter isnt the first platform thats financially rewarded the spread of misinformation, but its policy decisions have made it all the more vulnerable to abuse, an own goal that hurts not only trust in the platform but also users understanding of a major geopolitical event.

Instead, Musk has promoted the use of Community Notesa crowdsourced fact-checking system formerly known as Birdwatchand, in recent days, has claimed to have increased the speed at which these notes appear on misleading content. Further complicating things, a recent report found that hes also stopped allowing users to self-report political misinformation on specific posts. Community Notes is a helpful system (when its not wrong!), but Twitter is ultimately outsourcing the job of content moderation from in-house professionals to unpaid volunteers. And fundamentally, leaving bad information up with a user-generated addendum is not the same as removing or hiding it with a warning label, as Twitters old guard did.

Shannon McGregor, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hills media and journalism school, has been arguing for years that the most powerful people on a platform shouldnt be treated with kid gloves but taken more seriously. That includes not only political leadersremember Donald Trumps ongoing feuds with Twitter?but also users paying for greater reach and the chance to make money.

Those with the greatest reach and power should be subject to at least the same policies as all users, if not perhaps either more stringent or more holistically enforced versions of those policies, McGregor said. Thats where we see the danger. Its not like some random person breaking a content moderation rule, which is a problem. Its a [bigger] problem when someone who has a ton of power and attention does it.

Musk may want to prioritize free speech and being open source, but millions of people rely on his platform for reliable information. And, as its played out time after time, there are often very scary real-world consequences when conspiracy theories and fraudulent stories are allowed to run rampant. The only thing thats transparent is the owners inattention.

Read the original post:

X/Twitter is useless for Israel and Gaza news. Here's how Elon Musk caused it. - Slate