gThe famous brand of Lobabury didn’t want to be associated with the German far-right opposition. But Tesla, one of the world’s largest company names, does not have a traditional CEO.
After Elon Musk supports the alternative, Fool Deutsla Land (AFD), it is called Germany’s “only hope” – voters are considering replacing Tesla. Data released Thursday showed that the German company’s electric vehicle registrations fell 76% last month to 1,429. Overall, electric vehicle registrations increased by 31%.
Tesla’s biggest shareholder, who has expressed support for right-wing leaders around the world, is now a de facto American cabinet member under the Donald Trump administration.
Tesla’s reputation is closely tied to mask politics. After he spent $288 million on Trump’s 2024 election victory, Tesla’s valuation passed $1tn. But Musk’s political involvement is unprecedented for the head of a company of that size — and could also have a negative impact.
On Friday, a group of extinct rebel activists occupied a Tesla store in central Milan. Activists chained themselves to the tires of the car, while others glued them to the window along with slogans, “Let the billionaires pay again” and “Ecology, no ecofascism.”
Analysts openly wonder whether Musk is causing permanent damage to the brand he made synonymous with electric vehicles, and even brings a liberal aspiration to tackle climate change.
Tesla was asked to comment.
Tesla was the world’s largest producer of battery electric vehicles in 2024, but sales fell to 1.79 million. This was the first time since 2011 that it had withstanded a decline in sales since 2011 after years of rapid growth that became the world’s most valuable automaker.
The manufacturer said in January that global sales will increase in 2025, and Wall Street analysts hope Tesla will sell more than 2 million cars this year. But even these predictions represent little fiery return to form. Recently, Musk said in October that it expects sales growth of 20% to 30% per year, meaning that as many as 2.3 million cars are on sale.
“Customer retention will be important as customers…
Other analysts are more optimistic. Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities, a US financial company, is a longtime Tesla supporter. Ives believes…
IIt's easy to believe that Elon Musk's reach is unlimited. But the richest people in the world are given a carte blanche to control the space satellite empire, own one of the biggest social media platforms, produce the world's bestselling electric cars, and gush the US government from Donald Trump, but there is a market where masks have not yet cracked properly.
Now, due to his new impact on the Trump administration and global geopolitics, Musk's entrance into the Indian market could be smoother and faster than expected, both on Tesla's electric vehicles and Starlink satellite internet.
When India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi traveled to Washington earlier this month to meet Trump, he sat down with Musk personally. There, according to the Indian government, the pair “discussed about strengthening collaboration with Indian and US organizations in innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence and sustainable development.”
Trump said it more frankly: “I'm assuming him.” [Musk] I want to do business in India. ”
To date, India's 110% tariffs on imported electric vehicles have prevented Tesla from entering the fast-growing Indian market. However, Musk last year vowed that Tesla would be in India “as soon as possible as humanly possible.” And after his recent encounter with Modi, he appears to be keen to make it a reality.
Tesla has already started advertising for work in Mumbai and Delhi and has signed a lease to open its first showroom in Mumbai. If Tesla promises to invest $500 million in the factory that manufactures the car within three years, it could also take advantage of the new Indian government scheme, which will reduce import duties on electric vehicles to 15%. However, the tax credit only applies to the first 8,000 vehicles. This could push Tesla back.
The Tesla plant will benefit India, a country that is desperate for foreign investment and job creation, particularly in manufacturing. Nevertheless, Musk holds a checkered record of his commitment to investing in India. Last year, he left the Modi government's involvement after coming up with a high-profile plan to travel to India, hanging the possibility of a $3 billion investment to build a Tesla plant in the country, but cancelled the trip at the last minute. Instead, he rivaled China, another huge market that Musk would like to exploit in the same way to cut down on large transactions.
Elon Musk opened at the Tesla factory in Berlin, Germany in 2022. Photo: Patrick Pleul/AP
Tesla also faces tough competition with Indian manufacturers. Indian manufacturers manufacture and sell popular electric SUVs at about a quarter of the starting price of £35,000, which is far above the budget of most Indian families, when Tesla costs. (Tesla car sales have also plummeted worldwide, falling 45% in Europe in January.)
Trump also seemed less enthusiastic about Musk's ambition to start making Teslas in India. “If he builds a factory in India now, that's fine, but that's unfair to us. Trump told Fox News.
Another more advantageous finger in the Indian mask pie could be SpareLink's Starlink. Globally, masks already have the dominant lead on the satellite internet. There are more than half of all satellites in the sky.
Since 2021 he has been adamant about bringing Starlink into India. According to Deloitte, India's satellite internet currently has a small appetite, but is expected to grow to a $1.9 billion (£150 million) market by 2030, and is considered an important entry point for India's thriving telecom industry.
Earlier this year, after Trump took office, where Musk became very well-known, Indian Communications Minister confirmed that Starlink was in the process of seeking the security permits necessary to operate in India.
Jyotiraditya Scindia said: “If you check all boxes, you'll see the license. In their case [Starlink] Do it, we will be very happy. ”
However, in India, communications, including satellite internet, are one of the most strictly regulated and controlled industries in India, putting a huge obstacle in the way that foreign companies such as masks are allowed to have security permits.
In particular, Musk's close ties and business interests in China, and the use of Starlink in the Ukrainian War, was viewed as an insurmountable cybersecurity issue, SpareLink's ability to control access to satellite Internet from abroad. Government Undermody in India routinely orders internet providers to block important online content and uses internet blackout as a means of information management.
These fears could be raised after sources in Myanmar and neighboring India's Manipur state told the Guardian earlier this year that Starlink was already being used by the state's militant groups to avoid the regular internet closures imposed after the outbreak of ethnic violence.
A recent report from an Indian think tank warned that Starlink is a “wolf in sheep's clothing” and cited use by the US intelligence reporting agency and the military, and that it could be used to undermine India's safety.
However, some believe that after Trump's election, the Indian government may want to take those concerns to the side. “I think India had doubts about giving security clearance to Musk's Starlink before the US election results began,” said Nikhil Pahwa, founder of Indian tech news platform Medianama.
“One of the things we rely on India is our control of internet access and control over our operators. But now that Musk is part of the US government, his leverage in India has certainly increased, and it is possible that Starlink Clearing Security approval has improved dramatically.
Starlink can provide satellite internet to rural areas, but some have raised fears that it could be used to undermine India's safety. Photo: Nikolas Kokovlis/Nurphoto/Shutterstock
Pahwa said the Indian government's decision on Starlink is “as many political decisions as it is a security decision.”
What's known as “Starlink diplomacy” — opening the country to mask satellites in an obvious attempt to satisfy the Trump administration — was already evident in neighbouring Bangladesh, where the country's interim leader, Mohammed Yunus, suddenly expanded an invitation to launch Starlink within 90 days.
Even before Trump was re-elected, the Indian government had already piloted Starlink's ambitions in favour of its ambitions. In October, the government announced that broadband satellite spectra would be allocated administratively rather than auctions. “We will do our best to serve the people of India at Starlink,” Musk responded with an X.
This decision means Starlink has a much better opportunity to compete with Indian telecom companies in the fight to manage the country's satellite internet market. He has encountered rage from some of the country's biggest operators, including Jio, who also has vast ambitions in the satellite internet space, and has since lobbyed the government to reverse its auction decisions.
One of the main advantages of satellite internet is that it can provide internet access even in the most remote areas. However, in India, most people living in rural areas are unlikely to be able to afford it unless the subsidies are large.
Technology analyst Prasanto K Roy said that if Starlink cuts a significant amount of what he did in Africa, it could lead to a price war with India's biggest carrier if he repeats what Starlink did in the US at a price of around $10 compared to $120. A successful mobile internet, Jio came from undercutting all competitors to make Indian mobile internet the cheapest in the world, but could follow.
“Starlink isn't as easy in India like other markets, so there's a very strong competition here, so it's going to be difficult to get monopoly even at low prices,” says Roy.
He added: “People using Starlink will obviously be a very small niche at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid. But once he gets the hold, that's something that masks can really be utilized in India.”
Protesters gathered outside Tesla dealers across the United States on Saturday in response to Elon Musk’s efforts to sculpt government spending under President Donald Trump.
Groups of up to 100 demonstrators gathered outside the electric car manufacturer’s showrooms, including New York, Seattle, Kansas City and across California. Organizers said the protests took place in dozens of locations.
While the protests were scattered, they highlighted the risks to the car companies that have a close ties with Musk’s underlying right-wing agenda. Many protesters likened the Trump administration to the Nazis to carry placards. This is a characteristic that masks have previously highlighted.
Musk leads Doge, whose name comes from the US president’s “government efficiency,” or the Internet dog meme. Doge’s actions have rapidly dismantled government agencies, fired large federal workers across the United States, and have been criticized by some constitutional experts as illegal.
Some Tesla investors have asked whether Musk and the Trump administration’s relationship, including spending more than $200 million on a presidential campaign, will dent sales, particularly in liberal regions of the United States. Locations, including California, tended to be the largest market for U.S. electric vehicles, while Republicans and the Trump administration were actively opposed to technology.
Protest outside Tesla dealer in New York Saturday. Photo: Justin Lane/EPA
American musician Sheryl Crow posted a video of himself on Saturday, bidding farewell to Tesla, led by the Instagram social network. She said she sold the car and donated money to the US National Public Radio Station (NPR), which is “under threat by President Musk.”
“My parents always said… you’re the one you hang out with,” she wrote. “It’s time you have to decide who you’re going to suit. A very long Tesla.”
People within the Tesla business claim that the company is separate from the CEO. But that surge in valuation has played a key role in building the wealth of masks used to fund Trump’s campaign, thanks to previously burgeoning sales.
Tesla’s stock accounts for about a third of Musk’s wealth, according to Bloomberg. The private rocket company SpaceX is another third of ownership, while the rest links to Xai, X Social Network, Boring Company, Tunnel Business, and stakes from Brain-Computer Interface Company NeuralInk. Musk uses Tesla and SpaceX shares to secure personal loans worth billions of dollars.
Tesla reported its first annual sales decline in 2024 amid a tough time for the global automotive industry. It is not yet clear whether Musk’s right-wing politics contributed to its decline, and the company could potentially be able to compensate for the lost left-wing clientele with new enthusiasts on the right.
Some commentators have linked the sharp decline in German Tesla sales with a December declaration of support for the far-right alternative Deutschland (AFD). German Tesla sales fell 60% year-on-year in January, but delivery schedules could be affected by other factors that exceeded demand.
Tesla could be vulnerable to political backlash in other ways. In the UK, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davy said this week that the Labour government should impose tariffs on Tesla vehicles in retaliation from the White House, which taxes steel imports.
A speech by US vice president JD Vance represented a disruptive consensus on how to approach AI. He attended the summit alongside other global leaders including India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen. I did.
In his speech at Grand Palais, Vance revealed that the US cannot be hampered by an over-focus on global regulations and safety.
“We need an international regulatory system that promotes the creation of AI technology rather than strangle it. In particular, our friends in Europe should look to this new frontier, optimistic rather than fear. ” he said.
China was also challenged. Vance worked with the “authoritarian” regime in warning his peers before the country’s vice-president Zhang Guoqing with a clear reference to Beijing.
“Some of us in this room learned from our experience partnering with them, and what we’ve learned from your information to the authoritarian masters who try to penetrate, dig into your information infrastructure and seize your information. It means taking the country with you,” he said.
A few weeks after China’s Deepshek rattles US investors with a powerful new model, Vance’s speech revealed that America is determined to remain a global leader in AI .
2. Go by yourself
Naturally, in light of Vance’s exceptionalism, the US refused to sign the diplomatic declaration on “comprehensive and sustainable” AI, which was released at the end of the summit. However, the UK, a major player in AI development, also rejected it, saying the document is not progressing enough to address AI’s global governance and national security implications.
Achieving meaningful global governance for AI gives us even more distant prospects, as we failed to achieve consensus over seemingly incontroversial documents. The first summit held in Bletchley Park in the UK in 2023, at least voluntarily reached an agreement between major countries and high-tech companies on AI testing.
A year later, the gathering in Bletchley and Seoul had been carefully agreed, but it was already clear by opening night that this would not happen at the third gathering. In his welcoming speech, Macron threw the shade with a focus on Donald Trump’s fossil fuels, urging investors and tech companies to view France and Europe as AI hubs.
Looking at the enormous energy consumption required by AI, Macron said France stands out because of its nuclear reliance.
“I have a good friend on the other side of the ocean who says, ‘drills, babes, drills’. There is no need to drill here. Plugs, babysitting, plugs. Electricity is available,” he said. We have identified various national outlooks and competitive trends at the summit.
Nevertheless, Henry de Zoete, former AI advisor to Rishi Sunak on Downing Street, said the UK “played the blind man.” “If I didn’t sign the statement, I’d brought about a significant will with Trump’s administrators at almost cost,” he wrote to X.
3. Are you playing safely?
Safety, the top of the UK Summit agenda, has not been at the forefront of Paris despite continued concerns.
Yoshua Bengio, a world-renowned computer scientist and chairman of the major safety report released before the summit, told the Guardians of Paris that the world deals with the meaning of highly intelligent AI. He said that it wasn’t.
“We have a mental block to the idea that there are machines that are smarter than us,” he said.
Demis Hassabis ir, head of Google’s AI unit, called for Unity when dealing with AI after there was no agreement over the declaration.
“It’s very important that the international community continues to come together and discuss the future of AI. We all need to be on the same page about the future we are trying to create.”
Pointing to potentially worrying scenarios such as powerful AI systems behave at first glance, he added: They are global concerns that require intensive and international cooperation.
Safety aside, some key topics were given prominent hearings at the summit. Macron’s AI envoy Anne Boubolot says that AI’s current environmental trajectory is “unsustainable” and Christy Hoffman, general secretary of the UNI Global Union, says that AI is productivity at the expense of workers. He said that promoting improvements could lead to an “engine of inequality.” ‘ Welfare.
4. Progress is accelerating
There were many mentions of the pace of change. Hassavis said in Paris that the theoretical term for AI systems that match or exceed human on any intellectual task is “probably five years or something apart.”
Dario Amodei, CEO of US AI company Anthropic, said by 2026 or 2027, AI systems will be like a new country that will take part in the world. It resembles a “a whole new nation inhabited by highly intelligent people who appear on the global stage.”
Encouraging governments to do more to measure the economic impact of AI, Amodei said advanced AI could represent “the greatest change to the global labor market in human history.” I’ve warned.
Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGpt developer Openai, has flagged Deep Research, the startup’s latest release, released at the beginning of the month. This is an AI agent, a term for a system that allows users to perform tasks on their behalf, and features the latest, cutting-edge model O3 version of OpenAI.
Speaking at the Fringe Event, he said the deep research was “a low percentage of all tasks in the world’s economy at the moment… this is a crazy statement.”
5. China offers help
Deepseek founder Liang Wenfeng had no shortage of discussion about the startup outcomes, but he did not attend the Paris Summit. Hassavis said Deepshek was “probably the best job I’ve come out of China.” However, he added, “There were no actual new scientific advances.”
Guoqing said China is willing to work with other countries to protect security and share AI achievements and build a “community with a shared future for humanity.” Zhipu, a Chinese AI company in Paris, has predicted AI systems that will achieve “consciousness” by 2030, increasing the number of claims at the conference that large capacity AI is turning the corner.
6. Musk’s shadow
The world’s wealthiest person, despite not attending, was still able to influence events in Paris. The consortium led by Elon Musk has launched a bid of nearly $100 billion for the nonprofit that manages Openai, causing a flood of questions for Altman, seeking to convert the startup into a for-profit company.
Altman told reporters “The company is not on sale,” and repeated his tongue counter offer, saying, “I’m happy to buy Twitter.”
We were asked about the future of Openai’s nonprofit organizations. This is to be spun as part of the overhaul while retaining stocks in the profit-making unit. Things…and we’re completely focused on ensuring we save it.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Altman said the mask bid was probably an attempt to “slow us down.” He added: “Perhaps his life is from a position of anxiety. I feel the man.”
eLon Musk and Sam Altman are not exactly best friends. Altman’s pursuit of a for-profit approach for Openai, a company founded in 2015, seems to have irked Musk. Altman’s focus on making money rather than advancing humanity’s interests clashed with Musk’s vision for Openai.
As a result, Musk, who previously attempted to acquire Twitter, has now acquired ownership of an entity called X, which is linked to Openai’s growth.
Musk, characterized by the US government as lean, efficient, and globally influential, made a substantial bid of nearly $100 million for Openai’s nonprofit sector. Musk emphasized the need for Openai to return to its original open-source and safety-focused model. However, this bid was rejected by Altman, who jokingly mentioned that he would buy Twitter for $97.4 billion if necessary.
Musk’s bid was not about enriching investors or inflating corporate valuations, but about steering AI development towards societal benefits. Although the bid to reclaim control of Openai’s nonprofit was significant, the outcome remains uncertain.
The ongoing feud between Musk and Altman may escalate further, especially considering the history of their disagreements. Musk’s bid to take over Openai’s nonprofit could be seen as an attempt to thwart Altman’s for-profit ambitions for the company.
Elon Musk and Donald Trump, Washington, January 19, 2025. Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters
Musk’s bid for Openai’s nonprofit could have multiple interpretations, ranging from a strategic move to a mere publicity stunt. Given Musk’s penchant for unconventional actions, the true motives behind his bid remain uncertain.
There are various theories regarding the significance of the bid, including references to literature and playful numbers. However, the bid’s seriousness cannot be discounted, especially in light of potential political implications.
The bid may also reflect Musk’s attempt to disrupt the status quo and reshape the future trajectory of AI development. The possibility of Musk and Openai merging in the future cannot be ruled out entirely, given the unpredictable nature of the current situation.
IThis was one of the most impressive technology events of the year. On October 13, Starship, the world’s largest and most powerful rocket, blasted into space from a launch pad in Texas. The main booster reached an altitude of more than 65 km and then began returning to Earth at speeds exceeding the speed of sound.
A crash was averted when the rocket, developed by Elon Musk’s SpaceX company, reignited its engines, slowed, and came to a grinding halt above the tower from which it had launched just seven minutes earlier. The scissor’s claws grabbed the massive launcher, gripping it tightly, ready to refurbish and fire again.
“Today is textbook day in engineering history,” said SpaceX engineer Kate Tice.
prestigious research journal science “This feat heralds a new era of affordable heavy-lift rockets that can reduce the cost of doing science in space,” the company said last month in awarding Starship’s October flight. Announced. This year’s breakthroughs.
Elon Musk’s company plans 25 Starship flights in 2025. Photo: Argi February Sugita/ZUMA Press Wire/REX/Shutterstock
Musk’s company has already cut the cost of putting cargo into Earth orbit by one-tenth, the magazine said. Further reductions of similar magnitude can be expected when Starship, the most powerful launcher ever built and designed to be completely and rapidly reusable, becomes fully operational later this year, it added.
This view is shared by many space engineers, who believe Starship is poised to take a major leap forward with a schedule of launches every two to three weeks. SpaceX engineers have learned how to salvage and reuse the main booster stage and plan to do the same with the upper stage this year.
With a total of 25 flights planned over the next year, this is an incredibly ambitious program. “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that their research schedule is unprecedented,” astrophysicist Ehud Behar, a Technion professor at the Israel Institute of Technology, told the website Space.com.
For scientists, the benefits of Starship are clear. The cost of missions on reusable launch vehicles could drop significantly from current levels, making it possible to conduct research in space that was previously unaffordable. This point is important, he said. science In an editorial about Starship’s achievements, he said:
Until now, access to space was too precious to risk failure, the magazine said, and NASA missions tested components over and over again, driving up costs. “But regular Starship flights will give scientists more opportunities, allowing them to build instruments using inexpensive off-the-shelf parts and launch them more frequently.”
In addition to single vehicles, fleets of robotic probes could be sent to Mars, and fleets of mirror segments could be flown in formation to create giant self-assembling telescopes in space. While such a vision is exciting, there are downsides to Musk’s rocket success.
Elon Musk has grand ambitions to colonize Mars. Photo: Dot Zebra/Alamy
First, Starship could destroy NASA’s own rocket system, the troubled and extremely expensive Space Launch System (SLS), which the agency has been planning for decades. Unlike the reusable Starship, its rocket is expendable, while launching SLS will cost billions of dollars compared to the $10 million goal Musk has planned for the system. It is expected that it will cost. Many scientists predict that Starship will eliminate the need for SLS within a few years.
Another major problem for many scientists involved with SpaceX is that they have difficulty accepting Musk’s right-wing politics and close ties to Donald Trump. He is a vocal critic of U.S. immigration policy, has disdain for many Democratic politicians, and was recently given permission by President Trump to cut $500 billion from the U.S. federal budget.
In any case, Musk’s hopes for Starship have less to do with scientific aspirations and much more to do with his desire to eventually begin colonizing Mars using giant rockets. Last September, he promised that SpaceX would launch its first unmanned Starship mission to Mars in two years. If successful, manned flights would follow within four years. Ultimately, Musk said he envisions a potential colony of up to 1 million people on Mars within 30 years.
The controversial billionaire’s plans brought him a lot of attention and ridicule. Indeed, we have sent humans on a 140-meter-mile journey to the Red Planet, survived blasts of dangerous cosmic radiation, and figured out how to grow food in an atmosphere where water is scarce and the average pressure is less than 1% that of Earth’s oceans. Finding the level – challenging to say the least.
NASA’s Space Launch System at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Photo: Jennifer Briggs/ZUMA Press Wire/REX/Shutterstock
Leaving Earth for Mars is “like leaving a cluttered room to live in a toxic waste dump,” Kelly and Zach Weinersmith write in their book. Cities on Mars: Can and should we settle in space? And have we really thought about this?, which one Winner of the 2024 Royal Society Trivedi Scientific Book Award.
This is a view echoed by Astronomer Royal’s Martin Rees, who has also attacked Musk’s Mars proposal. “We should never expect mass immigration from Earth,” he says. “It’s a dangerous delusion to think that space can escape Earth’s problems. We have to solve them here. Dealing with climate change may seem daunting, but Mars Nowhere in our solar system are environments as harsh as Antarctica, the ocean floor, or the top of Mount Everest.
“For ordinary risk-averse people, ‘Planet B’ does not exist.”
From this perspective, Starships may have some impact on space science, but they are unlikely to change the course of human history.
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Company X, previously Twitter, has been deemed a financial disaster, with the company losing nearly 80% of its value since late 2022, as reported by CNN.
However, from a political perspective, Musk’s takeover could be seen as a strategic move, as Company X consistently stirs controversy and influences political discussions. The platform often highlights sensitive issues that align with conservative viewpoints, sparking debates and sometimes inciting unrest.
One example is the circulation of false stories like the rumor about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio consuming pets, which led to alarming reactions and threats during a critical time in the US presidential election.
Company X also amplifies factual but contentious news, sometimes overlooked by traditional media outlets, thanks to Musk’s active engagement. These topics range from immigration and government inefficiencies to social issues and censorship concerns.
Recent posts on Company X shed light on a scandal involving sexual abuse of young girls in northern England during the 1990s and 2000s, prompting Musk to call for accountability from UK authorities, drawing support from prominent figures like Bill Ackman.
Musk’s influence extends beyond X, as he leverages the platform to steer public conversations and intervene in global politics, aligning himself with right-wing parties and critiquing established political figures.
Despite facing criticism and losing users, Company X remains a powerful force in shaping right-wing narratives, contributing to Musk’s growing impact on political discourse worldwide.
Musk’s involvement in controversial issues through X has sparked debates and attracted both followers and detractors, highlighting the platform’s role in shaping public opinion and influencing political agendas.
As Musk continues to use X to drive political conversations and promote his agenda, the platform’s impact on mainstream discourse and public perception remains significant.
Hello. Welcome to Techscape. After enduring the recent impact of COVID-19, I’ve been reflecting on screen time and isolation. Just a few days of isolation and prolonged screen exposure were enough to bring back the mental state I experienced for most of 2020. Wishing everyone a wonderful winter and a happy new year filled with family, friends, and joyous gatherings.
Today on Techscape: A recap of the biggest tech story of 2024 – Elon Musk and the US Amazon worker strike.
Technology in 2024: Elon Musk as Influential as Donald Trump
Donald Trump listens to Elon Musk, who arrived to watch SpaceX’s giant rocket Starship take off for a test flight from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, on November 19th. Photo: Brandon Bell/AP
The significant tech story of the year is Elon Musk’s meteoric rise to power and global influence in 2024. Musk has become the most prominent individual worldwide without winning any elections. He holds sway over the US President and exerts control over vital government bodies regulating his companies, which have become crucial to many countries’ digital infrastructure. His enormous wealth makes US lawmakers uneasy, and his tweets impact leaders globally.
Since Trump’s presidency, Musk has wielded his influence boldly by shaping government decisions. His recent clash with the House of Representatives over a spending deal highlighted tensions in US politics. Despite his and Trump’s efforts, Republicans resisted their demands, pointing to the limits of CEO power and foreshadowing 2025’s potential chaos. Democrats mocked Musk as “President Elon Musk,” hinting at the escalating power struggle.
As political storms rage, it’s crucial to contemplate Musk’s rapid ascendancy in American politics and the implications it holds. Let’s delve into his timeline of events throughout the year, revealing Musk’s inevitable dominion over 2024 akin to Trump’s reign from 2015 to 2021, setting global news agendas with their actions.
a
Elon Musk’s departure from X resulted in the loss of around 2.7 million active Apple and Android users in the U.S. in a span of two months. In comparison, Bluesky, a competing social media platform, also saw a decline, losing nearly 2.5 million users during the same time frame.
This leak coincided with the exit of several prominent figures, including directors Guillermo del Toro and Mike Flanagan, and actors Quinta Brunson and Mark Hamill. Some, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, still have an X account but are now using Bluesky more frequently.
According to digital market intelligence firm Similarweb, the number of daily active users on X in the U.S. has dropped by 8.4% since early October, from 32.3 million to 29.6 million.
On the other hand, Bluesky has experienced a significant increase of 1,064% since October 6, growing from 254,500 to approximately 2.7 million users. This surge began when Musk started using the @america X handle to promote his pro-Donald Trump super pack and began posting in support of the former president.
Following Trump’s election victory, this trend accelerated further. Within a week of November 5th, Bluesky’s total user count doubled from 743,900 to 1.4 million. A week later, the number doubled again to 2.8 million. Since Musk’s super pack formation on X, the platform’s U.S. active users have increased significantly compared to Bluesky.
Bruce Daisley, a former vice president at Twitter, attributed the shift away from X to Musk’s concept of a “digital town square” and the platform’s evolving nature. He expressed concerns about the rise of extreme views on X under Musk’s leadership.
French journalist Salome Sake, who had a significant following on X, deactivated her account due to harassment and misinformation on the platform. She found Bluesky to be a healthier space and shifted her focus there.
Despite finding a new platform for journalism, Salome believes that the exodus of users from X enables those who spread hate, propaganda, and misinformation online. She emphasized the importance of diverse opinions and critical thinking.
Notable exits from X also include a German football club, St. Pauli, and Werder Bremen, citing the platform’s radicalization and departure from their values. Werder Bremen chose to leave X due to its stance against hate speech and discrimination.
Christoph Pieper, the director of communications at Werder Bremen, highlighted the club’s moral values and commitment to fighting against discrimination. Despite the potential economic impact, the club prioritized its principles over online visibility on X.
Pieper expressed uncertainty about the club’s future on Bluesky but firmly stated that any platform allowing hate speech is not suitable for Werder Bremen. Many other clubs are also considering a transition to Bluesky, signaling a shift away from X.
Elon Musk seems to have many preferences. The world’s richest man is evangelical about electric cars, space travel, and Donald Trump. Another of his interests could have a significant impact on British politics.
The billionaire is reportedly considering paying a rumored £80m to Nigel Farage’s British Reform Party, becoming its biggest donor in history.
Musk watchers say that, like many who supported Trump’s militant brand of right-wing populism, he became radicalized by frustration with the lockdowns.
Frustrated by the damage to manufacturing at Tesla car factories, he began spending more time online and testing the limits of the misinformation rules set by Twitter, as it was then known. Ta.
Now that he helped propel Trump to the White House, he is reportedly turning his attention to Britain.
Reform officials say they have no knowledge of Mr. Musk’s spending plans, which Mr. Musk also denies. But if the Tesla and X owners back up their online criticism of Keir Starmer’s government with huge donations to the Labor opposition, it could be one of the most significant political moves of this parliament.
Within two years of acquiring Company X (formerly Twitter) in October 2022, Mr. Musk has already become a darling of the international far-right, and under the banner of free speech has previously suspended his account. Thank you for reviving it. But Musk went further, using his account to amplify the messages of far-right activist and convicted criminal Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson.
By the time riots erupted in British cities this year, Mr Musk had engaged in a full-scale onslaught against the Labor government, claiming “a civil war is inevitable” and echoing that position, calling the prime minister “two-tiered”. Police reportedly treated white far-right “protesters” more harshly than minorities.
But over the weekend there were hints that Mr Musk might trade words and actions regarding the UK when the Sunday Times reported: He may be about to donate £80m He was a supporter of Nigel Farage’s British Reform Party and believed that the MP would be the next British Prime Minister.
Mr Musk denied the claims on Thursday, but Reform UK has remained noticeably silent on the matter, while Mr Farage boasted last month that he was counting on the support of his “new friend Elon” in the next general election. I was doing it. A major donor to his party even said quite bullishly to the Guardian this week: “Keep an eye on this area.”
Mr Musk’s wealth has increased by $133bn (£104.4bn) so far this year, reaching $362bn from his roughly 13% stake in Tesla and ownership in a number of companies.
The reasons behind Mr Musk’s apparent hostility towards Starmer and interest in Britain may be more complex.
Various theories about why the UK has been targeted by Mr Musk include the idea that he has come to view the UK as the epicenter of what he calls the ‘waking mind virus’. , blames Musk for his estranged daughter’s gender change. .
An even more outlandish theory, based partly on Musk’s time with X, is that Musk’s tweets in response to breaking news in the UK are a result of his tendency to stay up late in the US is.
“I don’t think you should tweet after 3am,” Musk told the BBC last year.
But one of the most obvious explanations is Musk’s own liberal, ultra-free speech vision that X is the true “town square” of the internet, and Labor’s mission to crack down on online hate speech. It is related to a clear conflict between
Mr Musk is “not accountable to anyone”, Peter Kyle, the UK science and technology secretary who is directly responsible for the government’s engagement with social media companies, complained in August. Also irritating Mr. Musk, Mr. Starmer’s current chief of staff has been involved in the creation of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which criticizes Mr. Musk for stripping away guardrails against hate speech on Twitter. This is likely a role played by Labor Party officials, including Morgan McSweeney, who is the head of the party. . In October, Musk issued a “declaration of war” on CCDH, calling it a “criminal organization” and saying he would “go after” it.
But there is no sign that holding Mr Musk to account will stop Britain’s move into right-wing politics. Beyond the near-relentless torrent of tweets, it’s even more uncertain how Mr Musk will expand his footprint in British public life.
Mr. Musk could avoid strict regulations on overseas donations by providing the funds through Company X’s British arm or by securing British citizenship. Her father, Errol, claims he is eligible because his grandmother is British.
Mr Musk may also be tempted to take further discussions with British industry and engage further with Starmer’s government.
Mr Musk was last in the spotlight in the UK last November when he attended the first AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park, home of the Enigma codebreakers. People who encountered him at the Bletchley summit said he was polite, talkative, surrounded by a surprisingly minimal entourage, and appeared to handle much of the official email about the event himself.
This convinced one former government adviser that discussing AI policy was probably the best way for Labor to forge a beneficial relationship with Mr Musk. The tech mogul, who founded his own AI company xAI, has consistently warned about the dangers of unchecked technology development. Speaking at the summit, he said, “There is a greater than zero chance that AI will kill us all.”
The former adviser said the creation of the UK AI Safety Institute by Rishi Sunak’s government, then the world’s first, could carry some weight for Mr Musk.
“He cares about the safety of AI, and has done so for years. A grown-up conversation with him about the UK’s world-leading work on national security risks from AI is a good place to start.” “I think Rishi Sunak will be a good ambassador even if Starmer finds out next,” the former adviser said. Politically undesirable. “Musk doesn’t suffer fools and Sunak really knows what he knows about AI.”
Another option would be to send Mr. Kyle and National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, who were impressed with their understanding of the brief. “It would show seriousness,” the former adviser said.
Hello. Welcome to TechScape. I’m Blake Montgomery, the Guardian’s US technology editor. Newsletter of the Week: Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to create a “Department of Government Efficiency,” cryptocurrencies score big wins across the board, and the modern-day equivalent of Lysistrata takes hold on TikTok. Thank you for your participation.
US President-elect Trump has expressed his desire to appoint Musk, the world’s richest man, as the country’s “cost-cutting secretary” with the goal of reducing the federal government’s bureaucracy by about a third, or $2 trillion. President Trump announced in September the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk has been endorsing the idea and actively promoting it, focusing on the agency’s acronym Doge (a nod to the popular Shiba Inu meme). President Trump stated that the agency will conduct a thorough financial and performance audit of the entire federal government to propose fundamental reforms.
In a video posted on X, Two days after the election, President Trump stated, “I am immediately reissuing my 2020 Executive Order, restoring the President’s authority to remove corrupt officials.” He aims to “eradicate the deep state,” echoing his famous catchphrase from The Apprentice: “You’re fired!” Project 2025, President Trump’s controversial blueprint for a second term, outlines how bureaucrats can be dismissed.
The billionaire appears to have no illusions about what will happen after the proposed cuts.
Mr. Musk has a proven track record of reducing corporate spending and has pledged to cut down federal payroll costs in a similar manner. He mentioned that after acquiring Company X (previously Twitter) in 2022, the company downsized its workforce by 80%. Despite preventing a $3 billion shortfall, revenue has declined significantly, and a revival seems improbable. However, as the CEO of SpaceX, he has established a reputation for launching rockets at lower costs than competitors by efficient management and negotiations with suppliers.
Considering the proposed spending cuts, the billionaire acknowledged that they would likely lead to temporary challenges, reflecting Americans’ desire for decreased expenditure. Do they advocate for austerity and federal budget cuts? Are they willing to heed advice from the world’s wealthiest person on curbing expenses?
Mr. Musk has already urged Mr. Trump to appoint SpaceX employees to key government roles. According to a report by The New York Times, the president-elect has vowed to restrict bureaucrats from transitioning to roles in regulated companies, potentially blocking SpaceX executives from federal positions. However, nepotism is not unfamiliar to the president-elect, and there seems to be no effort to avoid conflicts of interest. Mr. Musk’s involvement in the government will likely be structured to allow him to retain control of his businesses, as covered in the Financial Times.
During his first term, President Trump’s administration struggled to fill numerous government vacancies required for effective governance. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s administration admitted that it never fully recovered from the inability to appoint officials. Perhaps incorporating Mr. Musk into the equation is an attempt to avoid a repetition of such challenges. In a radical approach, Trump and Musk might simply eliminate positions for which suitable appointees cannot be found. This scenario is reminiscent of John Kennedy Toole’s novel, The Confederacy of Dunces, where a clueless protagonist attempts to clean up an organization’s mess, but only makes matters worse. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Trump and Musk following a similar path.
However, labor laws pose a significant obstacle for Musk, as Tesla remains the only major US automaker without unionized workers. The billionaire CEO intends to maintain this status quo. In contrast, federal employees benefit from strong job protections that may hinder Musk’s cost-cutting strategies. Despite his experience in managing various companies, handling public sector employees could prove challenging, as they may not be as flexible as those he is accustomed to.
Click here for more information. wonderful 4 months This has taken Elon Musk from someone who refused to endorse candidates to perhaps the most powerful figure in American politics, second only to Donald Trump. Read more about how Trump’s second term could be richer Musk.
Cryptocurrency companies poured $135 million into the US election, but what did they get for it?
Cryptocurrency companies spent $10 million attacking Katie Porter, an advocate of stricter crypto laws, in the California Senate primary. Porter lost. Photo: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Rex/Shutterstock
The cryptocurrency industry witnessed significant victories in the 48 elections where FairShake, the largest crypto pack, donated, with all industry-backed candidates emerging victorious. According to Bloomberg, over 60% of the cash contributed supported Republican candidates or opposed Democratic contenders.
The industry’s major investment was in Ohio, where Republican Bernie Moreno, backed by a cryptocurrency company with $40 million, challenged popular Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown. Mr. Brown’s advocacy for stricter regulation of digital currencies conflicted with the industry’s interests. Earlier, crypto companies spent $10 million targeting Katie Porter, a proponent of tougher crypto laws, in the California Senate primary, resulting in her defeat. Another crypto advocacy group, Protect Progress, equally invested in Senate races in Arizona and Michigan, where crypto was less contentious, but successful candidates were supportive of industry-related legislation.
Apart from the future advantages of a favorable regulatory climate, the cryptocurrency industry has reaped immediate economic gains, with Bitcoin reaching record highs exceeding $75,000.
While Fairshake did not contribute to the presidential election, it stands to benefit from the outcome, as Trump now endorses cryptocurrencies and supports the industry, reversing his initial stance. Musk has actively promoted cryptocurrencies, particularly Dogecoin, for years, even before their surge in popularity. (Harris has remained neutral towards cryptocurrencies.)
Musk is particularly interested in the removal of stock exchange chairman Gary Gensler, aligning with his priorities for cryptocurrencies.
Coinbase, the world’s second largest cryptocurrency exchange, donated $25 million to Fairshake. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong remarked that DC has received a clear message that opposition to crypto could end political careers, as he observed following the US election. The industry ranks second in political contributions after fossil fuel companies, according to consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen.
This week on iPhone
Following President Trump’s victory, American women are focusing on the 4Bs. Composite: Getty Images; TikTok; Guardian Design
I am watching dystopian coffeehouse comedy on Instagram and exploring why South Korea’s 4B movement (a modern-day version of Lysistrata) has gained popularity on TikTok. My colleague Alaina Demopoulos elaborates:
The core concept: Women vow to abstain from heterosexual marriage, dating, sex, and childbearing in protest against institutionalized misogyny and abuse. (Dubbed 4B after these four specific commitments.) Originating from online protests against revenge porn around 2018, the movement evolved into a #MeToo-inspired feminist movement in South Korea.
In light of Trump’s win, American women are contemplating the 4Bs, as highlighted by Demopoulos.
Read the full article here.
Wider TechScape
AI companies are keen to reduce red tape. Photo: Graham Robertson/Guardian
A leading scientist who has worked closely with wealthy individuals to address the dangers of AI suggests that Elon Musk’s influence over Donald Trump’s administration could result in stricter safety standards for artificial intelligence. Concerns about AI were not a prominent feature of Trump’s campaign, but Musk’s support for AI regulation in California demonstrates his ongoing worries about the issue.
Musk has repeatedly cautioned against the uncontrolled advancement of AI, warning of potentially disastrous consequences for humanity. He has advocated for a moratorium on research into powerful AI technologies, emphasizing the need for safety standards to prevent the development of artificial general intelligence that surpasses human intelligence levels.
Max Tegmark, a professor specializing in AI at MIT, believes that Musk could influence Trump to introduce regulations that hinder the advancement of artificial general intelligence. Tegmark sees Musk’s backing of AI safety measures in California as a positive step, even though the bill was ultimately vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
Musk’s early support for AI safety initiatives aligns with the efforts of Tegmark’s Future of Life Institute, which advocates for responsible technology use. Musk’s increasing wealth post-Trump’s presidency victory could further bolster his influence in shaping AI regulations.
While Musk has warned of a dystopian future controlled by AI, other experts argue that focusing on catastrophic scenarios may divert attention from immediate concerns like AI manipulation. President Trump’s administration aims to overturn AI safety measures introduced by the Biden administration, citing them as politically biased restrictions on AI development.
These measures include mandatory safety testing for high-risk AI systems that could jeopardize national security, economic stability, or public health and safety.
Elon Musk is currently facing election integrity issues offline, while X owner is advocating for the discovery and reporting of “potential instances of voter fraud or misconduct” through a representative. The community established by Musk is filled with unfounded claims masquerading as evidence of voter fraud.
Despite being absent from a mandatory court appearance in Philadelphia to address a lawsuit challenging his political action committee’s significant donations to voters, Musk has launched an online platform, X (formerly Twitter), dedicated to enabling users to share their voting-related concerns. The Election Integrity Community within this space swiftly began identifying what they perceived as signs of fraud and electoral interference.
Various tweets showcasing torn ballots, ABC News system tests, postal workers in action, and individuals submitting mail-in ballots are being presented as evidence of a compromised presidential election. Some users are even posting videos of people they suspect without substantial evidence, making it challenging for the community to verify these claims.
Misinformation is spreading within X and other platforms, with right-wing influencers amplifying false accusations of ballot stuffing and voter suppression. Such baseless claims are contributing to the harassment of innocent individuals, including postal workers, as seen in a viral video from Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
Experts note that this community, consisting of over 50,000 members, is employing tactics reminiscent of past online forums to propagate claims of a stolen election. These tactics were previously utilized in the aftermath of the 2020 election by groups like “Stop the Steal” on platforms such as Facebook, Telegram, and Parler.
In their attempt to bolster the narrative of a “stolen election,” these groups disseminate unverified stories to a large audience, which are then leveraged by influencers to fuel suspicions of electoral malpractice. The Election Integrity Partnership has compiled a report highlighting the dangers posed by such disinformation campaigns.
Lenny DiResta, an associate professor at Georgetown University, warns of the real-world consequences of unfounded rumors being weaponized by propaganda outlets. Ordinary individuals are inadvertently caught up in these campaigns, facing unwarranted scrutiny and harassment.
The Election Integrity Community provides insight into a nationwide echo chamber where beliefs of election rigging against Trump are widespread. While distinct from the main X feed, Musk occasionally shares concerns from this community on his page.
One prevalent conspiracy theory within the community revolves around Elon Musk, who has falsely insinuated that the Biden administration is orchestrating voter fraud through undocumented immigrants. Additionally, a Musk-backed Superpac has been implicated in disseminating misleading information about Kamala Harris with the “Project 2028” campaign.
A British-founded anti-hate speech campaign group involved in Labor’s interference in the US election has pledged to continue its efforts despite Elon Musk’s recent aggressive stance against the party.
The Center to Combat Digital Hate faced criticism from wealthy individuals this week after accusing Musk of violating laws against foreign interference in US elections.
Imran Ahmed, Founder and CEO of CCDH, stated: “We’re not backing down. We will persist in our mission through advocacy and research.”
Musk’s allegations were based on a report that highlighted connections between Labor Together and CCDH, a think tank once led by Keir Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.
Musk shared a report link on his social media platform, claiming, “This is war.” Musk previously attempted unsuccessfully to sue CCDH earlier this year.
President Donald Trump’s campaign filed a complaint against the Labor Party for alleged interference in the election by supporting Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. Mr. Starmer mentioned that party leaders volunteered to assist the Harris campaign in their spare time.
The complaint also mentioned that McSweeney and Downing Street communications director Matthew Doyle attended the Democratic convention in Chicago and met with the Harris campaign team.
In response to Musk’s actions, Mr. Ahmed stated, “Elon Musk has a history of targeting non-partisan organizations like us. This is not the first time we have been attacked by him.”
Mr. Ahmed, a former Labor Party aide, clarified that McSweeney assisted in establishing CCDH but had no operational role in the organization. He emphasized their commitment to their mission and bipartisan collaborations.
Musk’s recent criticism of CCDH followed the publication of an internal report by the organization. Disinformation Chronicle Newsletter revealed that combating misinformation on Musk’s platform was deemed a strategic priority for CCDH.
Mr. Ahmed clarified that ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter’ was used as shorthand to address Musk’s business model, emphasizing their commitment to combating misinformation.
Mr. Ahmed’s background in the Labor Party and his creation of CCDH in response to hate crimes demonstrate his dedication to fighting extremism and misinformation.
Elon Musk’s Mr. Pack spends significantly more on advertising on Facebook and YouTube compared to Musk’s own social network, X.
America Pac allocated $201,000 for running numerous ads on X (formerly Twitter) in the past three months. However, the organization spent $3 million on thousands of ads on Facebook and Instagram over a similar timeframe. Musk established the pro-Donald Trump pack in July and provided it with around $75 million, as per filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Based on political advertising disclosures, America Pac invested over $166,000 on 59 ads on X from July 8 to October 1. wired. After Musk assumed control of Pac’s @America handle on October 7, the company spent approximately $34,000 on X ads. bloomberg Reported. These ads were targeted at various battleground states, with a focus on Pennsylvania, generating about 32 million impressions according to Wired.
Contrasting these figures with America Pac’s ad purchases on Facebook, the organization spent over $3 million on 1,910 ads during a 90-day period from July 22 to October 19, some of which were also duplicated on Instagram, as per Meta’s ad library. The ads targeted users in states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona.
Around 12 ads from America Pac received over 1 million impressions, while others garnered hundreds of thousands. The Meta ad library doesn’t provide total impressions for individual advertisers, making direct comparisons with X ads more challenging.
Musk’s Pack also heavily invested in Google, particularly YouTube. According to the Google Ads Transparency Center, America Pac spent $1.5 million on 251 ads with Google and its subsidiaries since early July, which is ten times higher than what was spent on X. A significant portion of the ads were video advertisements, primarily targeting Georgia, as revealed in Google’s disclosure.
With over 200 million followers on X, Musk has a massive audience reach without incurring costs. Musk frequently retweets America Pack’s content, despite Pac having fewer than 7,000 followers.
The increase in Facebook spending signifies Musk’s shifting geographic focus. Audience data from Meta’s ad library indicated that a large percentage of America Pac’s ads in the past 90 days targeted North Carolina. However, in the recent seven days, over 25% of the ads focused on Pennsylvania, where Musk has been actively campaigning in person.
Facebook’s targeting options enable advertisers to reach specific audiences based on interests. America Pac tailored its ads to users intrigued by various subjects like Kelsey Grammer, trophy hunting, Kid Rock, the Boy Scouts of America, and Joe Rogan, among others.
Since Musk acquired Twitter and rebranded it as X in 2022, he has highlighted its advertising capabilities and app store performance. Even in 2023, advertising constituted 70-75% of X’s total revenue. bloomberg This trend persisted despite Musk introducing Twitter Blue, a subscription product. X’s revenue in 2023 amounted to $2.5 billion, nearly half of the previous year, primarily due to reduced advertising expenditure.
Musk is also focusing on organizing in-person events. He pledged to donate $1 million per day until the election to registered voters supporting America Pac’s petition. Musk has been awarding giant novelty checks at rallies in Pennsylvania over the recent days.
Hello. Welcome to TechScape. I’m Blake Montgomery. I’m the technology news editor for the Guardian US. Today on TechScape, I’m decoding Elon Musk’s global political goals, a notable documentary filmed inside World of Warcraft, a vote on support for school phone bans, and TikTok’s cats. Thank you for your participation. First, let’s talk about Mr. Musk’s world politics.
Over the weekend, Mr. Musk promised to give $150,000 a day to registered voters in U.S. battleground states who signed Mr. Pack’s petition in support of the First and Second Amendments. He awarded the first prize, a novelty check the size of a kitchen island, at a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday, and the second prize on Sunday in Pittsburgh. He plans to continue running until the November 5th election. Experts say the stunt may be illegal.
Why is Mr. Musk doing this? what does he want?
Last week, my colleagues Nick Robbins Early and Rachel Reingan published an article examining Musk’s inevitable influence on the US presidential election. The article delves into Musk’s political activities over the past few months, but what particularly interested me was the question it raised: As restrictions ease, masks around the world Is it the driving force behind his political activities? Is all this spending and campaigning about cutting government departments?
The constant battle with all the regulatory agencies comes at the same time that Musk has made numerous public statements supporting deregulation and calling for a full-scale federal audit. The idea has gained support from President Trump, who announced in September that he would create a Musk-led Government Efficiency Commission to audit cuts at federal agencies. Musk wants to call it the Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge, a reference to one of his favorite memes, the expressive Shiba Inu.
One of Musk’s go-to memes. Photo: The Guardian
The plan is vague in details and fails to address Mr. Musk’s apparent conflict of interest in auditing the regulators that oversee his company, but both Mr. Trump and Mr. He repeatedly brings up the idea of playing some kind of role. President Trump appeared on Fox News earlier this week and said he would create a new position called “Secretary of Cost Reduction” and appoint Musk to the position.
“He wants to do this,” President Trump said.
But Musk’s fight to reduce government agencies is not limited to the United States. At times, he found himself at odds with other billionaires in battles with “regulators.” In India, Mr. Musk is at war with the government. satellite broadband distribution And he won against Mukesh Ambani. Asia’s richest man wanted more favorable terms for his communications empire.
He calls himself a “free speech absolutist” and is dissatisfied with speech regulators. A month after the general election, when Britain was in the midst of violent race riots, Musk tweeted that “civil war is inevitable” and posted a cartoon depicting a man in the electric chair. , argued that this was gratuitous punishment by the government. He has made similar criticisms of California’s government and President Joe Biden’s administration.
His fight for deregulation regularly puts him at odds with the judiciary. Last month, Brazil cut off access to X for failing to comply with a judge’s order and also fined SpaceX subsidiary Starlink for violating its sister company. Mr. Musk and Mr. X eventually complied.
Recently, some regulators have taken new steps and begun imposing penalties on mask companies for their (or Musk’s) actions.
Last week, European regulators took a page out of Brazil’s book, telling Company X’s lawyers: EU could impose fines For social media companies that failed to comply with the Digital Services Act. Importantly, regulators are proposing to calculate that tax based on the total revenue of Mr. Musk’s businesses, not just Company X’s profits. A possibly much higher fine could leave the social media platform in financial limbo.
In California, the Coastal Commission cited Musk’s tendency to tweet misinformation during a vote to reject SpaceX and the U.S. Air Force’s petition to launch more rockets from a base on the Santa Barbara coast. did. In response, Musk filed a lawsuit alleging political bias and violations of the First Amendment. He just wants to be left alone to peacefully fire rockets, tweet, and spend tens of millions of dollars on his presidential campaign.
Read the full story about Mr. Musk’s ubiquitous campaign.
Photo: Christopher Kumar/PR
Evelin’s amazing life The film follows the legacy of Mads Steen, a Norwegian teenager who suffered from a degenerative disorder that forced him to spend most of his 25 years in a wheelchair.
As Steen became more dependent on his wheelchair and breathing machine, he began spending more time playing World of Warcraft and other games, sometimes up to 12 hours a day. The film takes place where he spent most of his life: online.
Steen’s parents are concerned about the negative effects screen time is having on their son. They fear he will “never experience friendship, love, or making a difference in the lives of others.” But after his death, they realize that their despair has given him a lifeline, freeing him to do all the things they never thought he could do. Steen’s Warcraft character Eveline led him into deep friendships, adventures, and even digital romance. He left them a password when he died so they could find out about his second life.
The film’s action, which mirrors Steen’s life, occurs both offline and online. Shot on digital locations in World of Warcraft’s Azeroth, it follows Ibelin’s reenactments of her conquests, conversations, and relationships there. Close-up shots zoom in on the avatar’s facial expressions, simulating the presence and emotions of Steen and his friends who talk about him as part of the Warcraft family. Each speaks of the deeply positive impact of the in-game friendship they shared with Steen through Evelin.
Evelyn’s scenes in Azeroth succeed in imbuing the fictional characters’ actions there with real meaning. Evelin kisses her date at sunset. He joins a family called Starlight. In moments of distress he lashes out at those closest to him. These avatars constitute the entire emotional life of a group of friends. They gave hope to a boy whose parents saw his life as truncated and lacking. Who’s to say they’re not real?
The success story of video games and social media is as old as the backlash against both. But what makes this documentary different is that it places the viewer next to the subject on screen. This is an immersive and empathetic approach, and it’s much better than watching someone use a device from a third-person perspective.
The film comes as parents around the world debate how much screen time is appropriate for their children. The argument that time spent digitally with friends has tangible weight is made even more persuasive by its format. By relying on in-game cinematography, the film shows the emotional weight of online life.
The film will be released on Netflix on October 25th.
on my iPhone
Photo: The Guardian
This week I’ve been watching some interesting videos: Cat equipped with a camera collar. This video is not only a peek into the secret lives of outdoor pets, but also a marvel of camera stabilization technology. Some camera companies have already Sponsored by Mr. Kittershas become one of the main characters on TikTok. Another feline star, the confrontational @max20499, is more of a villain. He loves to ambush and fight unsuspecting cats. To find him, the app suggests the search terms “Maxwell the Bully Kitten” and “Maxwell the Bully Kitten meets his match.”
Britain has banned students from using mobile phones in schools. Should U.S. schools do the same?
Photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters
pew research last week released a poll of 5,110 American adults about banning cell phone use in schools. You may be surprised by the results, as I was. Quote from the poll results:
A close friend of Keir Starmer suggests that Westminster needs to distance itself from X, alleging that Elon Musk is purposely manipulating algorithms to further his own political and personal agenda. He implied that this might be the case.
Josh Symonds, Member of Parliament for Makerfield and former director of the pro-Starmerite think tank Labor Together, argues that Britain’s political elite is dangerously reliant on the platform formerly known as Twitter. He expressed his belief in it. Symonds maintains an active X profile but is cautious not to “overuse” it.
His remarks mirror the growing unease among Labour MPs regarding the impact of X following the summer riots, during which misinformation rapidly circulated on the platform. This situation also risks escalating tensions between the government and the company, with Musk persistently criticizing Starmer for his handling of the violence.
Congressman Josh Simmons Photo: Roger Harris/British Parliament
Simons, a tech expert who authored a book on artificial intelligence, conveyed in an interview with The Guardian: That’s all. Particularly because I hardly ever endorse anything he says and I really don’t want to see it, even though I encounter him frequently.
“I even mentioned, ‘Don’t show me any more,’ yet he’s constantly present. And that certainty – despite the disapproval from the company’s founders and owners. You’ll notice additional individuals in the algorithm – [of] Something happening.”
He added, “The notion that individuals in the Westminster bubble are acquainted through a ranking system devised by someone who has dedicated his life to supporting Donald Trump is entirely, unequivocally wrong and detrimental to British democracy. I believe it’s harmful,” he continued. “I think it’s short-sighted for us all.”
X did not respond to requests for comments
The relationship between the government and social media platforms has been strained since the summer riots, with experts contending that online misinformation about the perpetrator who killed three children in Southport incited the disturbances.
As the violence intensified, Musk repeatedly posted about the unrest, sharing a video of the riots in Liverpool with the caption: “Civil war is inevitable.” Downing Street publicly rebuked these comments, labeling them as “unjustified,” to which Musk retaliated with a flurry of enraged posts.
X’s owners recently revived their criticism of the Labour government after being excluded from an international investment summit on Monday. “I don’t reckon anyone should visit the UK when they release a convicted pedophile. [sic] For imprisoning individuals based on their social media postings,” he posted, apparently alluding to the government’s early release initiative.
Numerous Labour MPs have opted out of X and instead established profiles on competing platforms such as Bluesky.
Simons, formerly involved in Meta’s AI program and presently campaigning for a seat on the Commons Technology Select Committee, opines that the new cohort of MPs are more skeptical of platforms than their predecessors, he asserts.
“The landscape is evolving quite fundamentally,” the 31-year-old remarked. “In reality, I believe there’s a generation that doesn’t necessarily imply they won’t utilize it at all, particularly since it offers us another avenue to attract attention.”
He also contends that the discourse surrounding AI has been predominantly shaped by older politicians who did not grow up in a tech-immersed environment like his generation did. He suggests that such individuals are frequently overly optimistic or pessimistic about how technology will revolutionize government operations.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair and ex-Conservative Party leader William Hague are among the most vocal proponents of broad AI integration in the public sector. Former Chancellor Rishi Sunak also conveyed optimism about the potential but cautioned about the “existential risks” to humanity.
“There’s a generation,” Simons remarked, “[that] didn’t grow up alongside data and technology, and they harbor simplistic, reductionist, and often utopian or apocalyptic notions about how technology will impact the nation’s future, public services, and economy.”
“AI frequently hinders delving deeper into the technology to better comprehend its policy and political implications.”
The Supreme Court of Brazil has ordered the suspension of social media platform X’s activities in the country as the company failed to appoint a legal representative within the specified deadline.
Judge Alexandre de Moraes, in a continuing legal battle with X’s owner Elon Musk, issued an order on Friday evening for the complete suspension of X’s operations until all court orders are fulfilled, fines are paid, and a new legal representative is appointed in the country.
The National Telecommunications Agency of Brazil has been given 24 hours to enforce the court’s decision, after which over 20,000 broadband providers in the country will be required to block access to X.
The agency’s director, Carlos Manuel Baigorri, confirmed that the order has been communicated to internet providers, with the expectation that all businesses will have implemented the blocks by the weekend.
Initially, Judge Moraes instructed Apple and Google to block X apps and VPN applications. However, these references were later removed pending further information from the involved parties.
Individuals or companies attempting to use X through VPNs will face fines of 50,000 reais per day.
Following X’s failure to appoint new legal representatives, Musk announced that the platform would not comply with the court’s orders.
Musk criticized Brazil’s actions, accusing the country of stifling the truth and intimidating those seeking it.
The conflict between Musk and the Brazilian authorities began in April, with accusations of spreading misinformation and censorship.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva emphasized the need for compliance with Brazilian laws and court decisions, warning against disrespect for the country’s sovereignty.
In response to Musk’s actions, local bank accounts linked to Starlink, Musk’s satellite and internet provider, were blocked to enforce fines imposed on X.
As legal experts criticized the decision affecting Starlink, the internet provider assured customers of continued service despite the financial implications.
Starlink has requested the Supreme Court to reconsider Moraes’ decision and lift the freeze on its accounts, or alternatively, limit the freeze to the fine amount imposed on X.
pictureRon Musk isn’t stopping tweeting. In just seven days last week, he made nearly 650 posts on the social network he bought in November 2022 and reluctantly rebranded as X. He also spent nearly three hours wrestling with technical issues in what he would later conclude was the result of an unproven hacking attack while trying to host a “conversation” with Donald Trump, and livestreamed himself playing Blizzard’s sword-and-sorcery game Diablo IV for several hours.
The volume of his content alone is impressive enough, but even for someone who was so into posting that he spent more money on a site than the Manhattan Project budget, Musk’s consistency is astonishing.
In the week of tweets analysed by The Guardian, there was a 90-minute period when he posted nothing, between 3am and 4:29am local time, but he tweeted at least once every other half hour throughout the day and night: at 4:41am on Saturday morning, 2:30pm on Wednesday night, and at 11pm on six of the seven days.
The longest Musk went without tweeting that week was seven and a half hours, when he slept until 8:10 a.m. after a late-night posting session. On Saturday night, Musk logged out after retweeting a meme likening the Metropolitan police to the SS, then returned online four and a half hours later to retweet a tweet from a cryptocurrency influencer complaining about the prison sentences of British protesters.
Awesome, awakened, cool
Not all of Musk’s posts on X are loaded with meaning. Most are simple one- or two-word replies to fans, followers and allies. Two minutes after he replies “Cool” to a construction influencer’s AI-generated photo of himself, he replies “Cool” to a montage of photos of the Tesla Cybertruck driving through North America, and a minute later an AI-generated cartoon of himself points to a sign that reads “Criticism is welcome on this platform” and replies “💯.”
One-word replies can sometimes be a good thing and a bad thing. Musk, who has never been one to follow traditional “online etiquette,” occasionally replies to messages with a “😂” emoji and then copies the exact same thing to his own feed without credit. It’s unclear why some posts get Musk’s treasured retweets while others get stolen and reposted.
Musk is sometimes careful with his praise, especially when it comes from users he’s not comfortable being too vocal about. An End Wokeness post about a California early release bill, a Malaysian far-right influencer’s post about Haitian criminals, and a Libs of TikTok post about another California bill have all been marked with a simple “!!” by Musk, while a post by Dom Lucre, a far-right influencer who was banned from the site for posting child abuse imagery, doesn’t even get that mark. Personally covered In 2023, I received just one “!” from a billionaire.
Riot and Grok
Musk’s outrage over the UK riots seems to be deepening his ties to the far-right: Over the past week, he has begun a conversation with Canadian influencer Lauren Southern, one of three anti-Muslim activists named in the UK riots. Banned from entering the UK It was launched by Theresa May’s government in 2018. Though the pair share a distrust of the media, Musk is now a paying subscriber to her feed, supporting her – along with more than 160 other users – for £4.92 a month.
But Musk’s crazy behavior makes sense. A showman, the memes and chatter he retweets and reposts are full of promotions he wants to make that day. Sometimes, it’s professional. On Wednesday and Thursday, when his AI company xAI released the latest version of its large-scale language model, Grok, a significant percentage of his posts were sharing quotes and images generated by it.
In the UK in 2030, you could be executed for posting a meme…
And then there are the riots. During the week, Musk’s attention was diverted from tensions in the UK, but the spate of rulings handed down over the weekend meant he was primed for a bit of mayhem.
He latched onto right-wing memes about Keir Starmer promoting a “two-tier” policing system and downplayed their contribution to the violence while constantly drawing attention to the punitive sentences given to rioters. Early on Friday morning, he expanded on his criticism of the SNP's Humza Yousaf, calling the former Scottish First Minister a “super super racist” and challenging him to take legal action in response.
Trump and Tesla
On Monday and Tuesday, Musk drew attention to his conversation with Donald Trump, sharing posts before the livestream in which fans excitedly wondered how many people would tune in and what the two smartest people in the world would discuss, then reposting posts after the livestream in which fans were upset that biased media wouldn’t write more positive headlines and asking fans to shorten the conversation into a more manageable hour-long highlights reel.
Despite this friction, another side of Musk shows up when he talks about his two biggest companies, Tesla and SpaceX. With Tesla being a public company, Musk has to be careful with what he says. He has a fiduciary duty to shareholders and legal obligations on how to disclose material information. Those obligations came to a head when the SEC sued him over his infamous tweets in which he falsely claimed he had “secured funding” to take Tesla private. In a subsequent settlement with regulators, Musk agreed to have his lawyers review all of his tweets about Tesla, a deal he has since regretted.
But after an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, the deal remains valid, meaning Musk’s final chance to escape the “Twitter guards” may be… It was scrapped in April this year.His posts about Tesla have been surprisingly muted. Shortly after his conversation with Trump, he posted a lengthy, mostly standard, statement retracting some of his comments about climate change: “To be clear, I believe global warming is real.” He startedWhat he meant was that even without global warming, high levels of CO2 It was dangerous.
“Guardians are trash…”
Musk also used the opportunity to take aim at another favorite target, The Guardian. After the paper quoted experts in what he called “the dumbest climate change debate in history,” Musk slammed others he follows who shared the article, telling author Stephen King that “The Guardian cannot be considered objective” and entrepreneur Vinod Khosla that “The Guardian is rubbish.”
What actions can the UK government take regarding Twitter? Should What are your thoughts on Twitter? What interests does Elon Musk have?
The billionaire proprietor of the social network, still officially referred to as X, has had an eventful week causing disruptions on his platform. Besides his own posts, which include low-quality memes sourced from 8chan and reposted fake concerns from far-right figures, the platform as a whole, along with the other two of the three “T’s,” TikTok and Telegram, briefly played a significant role in orchestrating this chaos.
There is a consensus that action needs to be taken: Bruce Daisley, former VP EMEA at Twitter, proposes individual accountability.
In the near term, Musk and other executives should be reminded of their legal liability for their actions under current laws. The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 should be promptly bolstered. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his team should carefully consider if Ofcom, the media regulator frequently criticized for the conduct of organizations like GB News, can effectively manage the rapid behavior of someone like Musk. In my view, the threat of personal consequences is much more impactful on corporate executives than the prospect of a corporate fine. If Musk continues to incite unrest, an arrest warrant could create sparks from his fingertips, though as a jet-setting personality, an arrest warrant could be a compelling deterrent.
Last week, London Mayor Sadiq Khan presented his own suggestion.
“The government swiftly realized the need to reform the online safety law,” Khan told the Guardian in an interview. “I believe that the government must ensure that this law is suitable immediately. I don’t think it currently is.”
“Responsible social media platforms can take action,” Khan remarked, but added that “if they fail to address their own issues, regulation will be enforced.”
When I spoke to Euan McGaughey, a law professor at King’s College London on Monday, he provided more precise recommendations on what actions the government could take. He mentioned that the Communications Act 2003 underlies many of Ofcom’s authorities and is applied to regulate broadcast television and radio, but extends beyond those media.
Simply as section 232 specifies that “television licensable content services” involve distribution “by any means involving the use of an electronic communications network,” this Act empowers Ofcom to regulate online media content. While Ofcom could exercise this power, it is highly improbable as Ofcom anticipates challenges from tech companies, including those fueling riots and conspiracy theories.
Even if the BBC or the government were reluctant to interpret the old law differently, minor modifications could subject Twitter to stricter broadcasting regulatory oversight, he added.
For instance, there is no distinction between Elon Musk posting a video on X about (so-called) two-tier policing, discussing “detention camps” or asserting “civil war is inevitable” and ITV, Sky, or the BBC broadcasting the news… Online Safety Act Grossly insufficient, as the constraints merely aim to prevent “illegal” content and do not inherently address false or dangerous speech.
The law of keeping promises
Police in Middlesbrough responded to a mob spurred by social media posts this month. Photo: Gary Culton/Observer
It may seem peculiar to feel sympathy for an inanimate object, but the Online Safety Act has likely been treated quite harshly given its minimal enforcement. A comprehensive law encompassing over 200 individual clauses, it was enacted in 2023, but most of its modifications will only take effect once Ofcom has completed the extensive consultation process and established a code of practice.
The law introduces a few new offenses, such as bans on cyber-flashing and upskirt photography. Sections of the old law, referred to as malicious communications, have been substituted with new, more precise laws like threatening and false communications, with two of the new offenses going into effect for the first time this week.
But what if this had all happened earlier and Ofcom was operational? Would the outcome have been different?
The Online Safety Act is a peculiar piece of legislation: an effort to curb the worst impulses on the internet, drafted by a government taking a stance in favor of free speech amidst a growing culture war and enforced by regulators staunchly unwilling to pass judgment on individual social media posts.
What transpired was either a skillful act of navigating a tricky situation or a clumsy mishap, depending on who you ask. The Online Safety Act does not outright criminalize everything on the web; instead, it mandates social media companies to establish specific codes of conduct and consistently enforce them. For certain forms of harm like incitement to self-harm, racism, and racial hatred, major services must at least provide adults with the option to opt out of such content and completely block it from children. For illegal content ranging from child abuse imagery to threats and false communications, it requires new risk assessments to aid companies in proactively addressing these issues.
It’s understandable why this legislation faced significant backlash upon its passage: its main consequence was a mountain of new paperwork in which social networks had to demonstrate adherence to what they had always purportedly done: attempting to mitigate racist abuse, addressing child abuse imagery, enforcing their terms of use, and so forth.
Advocates of the law argue that it serves more as a means for Ofcom to impose its promises on companies rather than forcing them to alter their behavior. The easiest way to impose a penalty under the Online Safety Act – potentially amounting to 10% of global turnover if modeled after GDPR – is to announce loudly to customers that steps are being taken to tackle issues on the platform, only to do nothing.
One could envision a scenario where the CEO of a tech company, the key antagonist in this play, stands before an inquiry, solemnly asserting that the reprehensible behavior they witness violates their terms of service, then returning to their office and taking no action.
The challenge for Ofcom lies in the fact that multinational social networks are not governed by cartoonish villains who flout legal departments, defy moderators, and whimsically enforce one set of terms of service on allies and a different one on adversaries.
Except for one.
Do as I say, don’t do as I do
Elon Musk’s Twitter has emerged as a prime test case for online safety laws. On the surface, the social network appears relatively ordinary: its terms of service prohibit the dissemination of much of the same content as other major networks, with a slightly more lenient stance on pornographic material. Twitter maintains a moderation team that employs both automated and human moderation to remove objectionable content, an appeals process for individuals alleging unfair treatment, and progressive penalties that could ultimately lead to account suspensions for violations.
However, there’s an additional layer to how Twitter operates: Elon Musk follows through on what he says. For instance, last summer, after a prominent right-wing influencer shared child abuse images, the account’s creator received a 129-year prison sentence. The motive remains unclear, but the account was swiftly suspended. Musk then intervened:
The only people who have seen these photos are members of the CSE team. At this time, we will remove these posts and reinstate your account.
While Twitter’s terms of service theoretically prohibit many of the egregious posts related to the UK riots, such as “hateful conduct” and “inciting, glorifying, or expressing a desire for violence,” they do not seem to be consistently enforced. This is where Ofcom may potentially take aggressive actions against Musk and his affiliated companies.
If you wish to read the entire newsletter, subscribe to receive TechScape in your inbox every Tuesday.
Just as the much-anticipated conversation between Donald Trump and Elon Musk was set to begin, users of X (formerly Twitter) were met with a message stating, “This space is no longer available.”
X’s livestreaming audio feature, Spaces, was supposed to host the conversation, but technical difficulties prevented it from working. Clicking on a link to Trump’s inactive account, @RealDonaldTrump, caused the site to freeze and become unusable, leading to complaints from users about being unable to join and browsers crashing.
Musk, the owner of X, posted that it seemed the platform had been hit with a massive DDOS attack. However, the rest of X seemed to be functioning without issues.
The interview was scheduled for 8pm ET, but due to resolving technical problems, Musk announced a 30-minute delay. Eventually, users were able to join the broadcast by clicking a link.
When the hold music on X stopped at 8:30 p.m. ET, a rustling sound could be heard from Trump’s microphone, leading to 10 minutes of silence before the interview finally began. X showed a high listener count of over 1 million as the interview progressed.
Musk mentioned that the DDOS attack had been mostly overcome, stating, “There is strong opposition to listening to President Trump, as evidenced by this massive attack.”
Trump expressed satisfaction with the incident, calling it an honor alongside millions of others.
This mishap is particularly damaging for X’s image as a tech innovator and a reliable advertising platform. The company recently filed a lawsuit against major advertisers for monopolistic practices.
Despite some challenges, Musk continues to position X as a platform at the forefront of politics and free speech.
A former Twitter executive has suggested that Elon Musk should be subject to “personal sanctions” and the possibility of an “arrest warrant” if he is found to be disrupting public order on his social media platform.
Bruce Daisley, Twitter’s former vice president for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, expressed in the Guardian that it is unfair to let tech billionaires like Musk tamper with discord without facing personal consequences.
He urged Chancellor Keir Starmer to toughen online safety laws and assess whether media regulator Ofcom is equipped to handle fast-moving individuals like Musk.
Daisley emphasized that the threat of personal sanctions is more effective against executives than the risk of corporate fines, as it could impact the lavish lifestyles of tech billionaires.
The UK government has urged social media platforms to act responsibly following recent riots, attributing them to false information spread online, including claims about asylum seekers.
Musk’s inflammatory posts, such as predicting civil war in the UK, have garnered criticism from government officials, with some calling his remarks unacceptable.
Daisley, who worked at Twitter from 2012 to 2020, described Musk as someone who behaves like a reckless teenager and suggested that an arrest warrant might make him reconsider his actions.
He emphasized the need for legislation to establish boundaries for acceptable behavior on social media and questioned whether tech billionaires should be allowed to influence society without consequences.
Daisley urged for immediate strengthening of the Online Safety Act 2023 to hold tech executives accountable for their actions and to prioritize democratic governance over the influence of tech billionaires.
He also suggested that views deemed harmful, such as those from individuals like Tommy Robinson, should be removed from platforms under the guidance of regulators like Ofcom.
Daisley concluded that the focus should be on upholding acceptable behavior on social media rather than prioritizing profits, especially when influential tech figures like Musk are involved.
He emphasized the possibility of holding tech billionaires accountable for the content allowed on their platforms and called for stricter measures to prevent abuse of power.
Tesla shareholders have given their approval to a contentious referendum regarding CEO Elon Musk’s leadership, resulting in an agreement to pay him $45bn (£35.3bn).
The results, which were released on Thursday, reflect a struggle for the billionaire tycoon to retain the largest compensation package ever awarded to an executive at a publicly traded U.S. company.
“First of all, I want to say I love you guys so much!” said Musk, expressing his elation as he took the stage after the vote.
The vote followed a ruling by a Delaware judge in January that invalidated a previous payment to Musk, which was then valued at about $56bn (£439m), citing lack of board independence from Musk’s influence and an unlawful process in reaching the amount.
The outcome is seen as a win for Musk and the Tesla board, who actively lobbied shareholders to support the deal. It could potentially challenge the judge’s decision to nullify the payment and aid in demonstrating that shareholders were adequately informed about the payment and directors’ relationships with Musk prior to voting.
Tesla’s board cautioned that Musk may sever ties with the company if the package was not approved, but Musk asserted he had substantial backing from investors.
Despite opposition from major shareholders like Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and the California State Teachers Retirement System, as well as proxy advisory firms Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, the vote does not automatically guarantee the release of the funds, and further legal debates are expected.
The vote may trigger additional litigation that could prolong legal proceedings, and the approval of relocating Tesla’s legal headquarters from Delaware to Texas could complicate the matter further.
Tesla initially introduced Musk’s compensation package in 2017, which included stock options based on meeting specific company goals. The package was approved by shareholders in 2018 but faced legal challenges alleging board deception and unfairness.
Judge Katherine McCormick of the Delaware Chancery Court criticized Tesla’s board process for determining Musk’s compensation, highlighting conflicts of interest and close relationships with Musk’s associates. Despite this, the board aims to challenge Judge McCormick’s ruling.
Reports suggest that Elon Musk’s visit to China led to an immediate benefit with a deal for Tesla to utilize mapping data from Baidu, a major web search company, to introduce driver-assistance technology to the largest car market globally. This marks a significant advancement.
Over the weekend, Musk made a surprise visit to China. He shared a photo of his meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang on the social network X, which he acquired in 2022.
According to sources referenced by Bloomberg News, Baidu, a dominant force in Chinese web search, will offer mapping and navigation services to aid Tesla in implementing driver-assistance technology labeled as “Full Self-Driving” (FSD). The provision of mapping services, crucial for driver-assistance technology, is strictly regulated by the Chinese government.
Despite its name, FSD does not enable autonomous driving. It necessitates a driver who is prepared to take control at any moment. Launching in China could enhance Tesla’s position in the competitive market there and boost revenue. The service costs $8,000 or $99 (£80) per month, but is not accessible in many countries.
Musk has had confrontational interactions with politicians in the past, criticizing U.S. President Joe Biden and entering a dispute in Brazil over censorship issues on X, formerly Twitter. However, his approach towards China’s second-ranking official, Li, was more conciliatory, expressing being “honored” to meet him.
Musk’s interactions with China have been complex due to various business ties. X is blocked by the Chinese government due to strict censorship policies. Additionally, there were concerns from the Chinese government regarding an incident involving a satellite launched by SpaceX, Musk’s rocket company, coming close to their space station.
However, Tesla operates a factory in Shanghai, and its Model Y was the third best-selling electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle in China in March 2024, according to CleanTechnica. BYD, a Chinese competitor to Tesla in electric car sales, has two top-selling models.
The news of Musk’s visit and the partnership with Baidu were met with enthusiasm by Tesla investors, who view potential self-driving capabilities as crucial for Tesla’s position as the most valuable automaker globally. Tesla’s stock price rose by 6% in premarket trading in New York.
Dan Ives, a technology analyst at Wedbush investment bank, mentioned in a client note that Tesla’s future standing relies heavily on FSD and autonomous driving. He emphasized the significance of making FSD accessible in China, a step that appears to be imminent.
ERon Musk became the richest man in the world by evangelizing electric cars and delivering one million electric cars. But in recent months, his company Tesla has struggled to maintain its momentum. This year's sales have declined and stock prices have fallen.
These struggles are emblematic of the broader situation facing the electric vehicle (EV) industry. The pace of sales growth has slowed after years of the coronavirus pandemic that sent demand and valuations soaring. The industry is entering a new phase, raising questions about whether the switch from gasoline and diesel to cleaner electricity will face a nasty stall or a temporary speed bump.
Musk acknowledged the difficulties this week, telling investors: “Globally, EV penetration is under pressure, with many other automakers pulling back from EVs and pursuing plug-in hybrids instead. ” he said. Musk, of course, insisted it was the wrong decision.
Electric vehicle charging stations in Norway, where EVs account for 90% of the market. Photo: Andreas Wirth/Alamy
However, sluggish sales are a reality. Tesla and its closest rival in electric car sales, China's BYD, have both reported declines in electric car sales. Across Europe, the share of sales of battery electric cars fell to 13% from 13.9% last year, while sales of hybrid cars, which combine a battery and an internal combustion engine, rose to 29% from 24.4%. In the UK, electric cars accounted for 15.5% of total car sales in the first three months of 2024, only a slight increase on the same period last year.
In recent years, electric car manufacturers have been able to easily sell every electric car they make. However, many companies around the world are currently struggling to cope with the end of the era of rock-bottom interest rates, when households have less money left in their pockets.
“The economic headwinds are pretty bad across the board, so it's no surprise that the economy is slowing down,” said Ian Henry, whose auto analysis consultancy works with several automakers.
Buyers still have to pay more upfront for battery cars (though most will save money by owning an electric car because energy is cheaper). Additionally, electric vehicle repair costs and insurance premiums may be higher in some locations due to a lack of mechanics. Another important factor is that the rollout of public chargers has been very patchy, giving some potential buyers pause. All of these were pounced on by EV industry skeptics, turning the industry into a culture war battleground.
government's hand
Rico Luhmann, senior sector economist for automotive at investment bank ING, said EV sales had reached a “plateau” and that after an initial rush of early adopters accustomed to switching from gas-powered cars, electric vehicle sales were on the rise. He said sales will become even more difficult. diesel.
But there is more at play in this showdown than purely economic factors. Government also plays a big role. This trend is particularly evident across Europe, where EV sales are following diverging paths even as buyers face similar pressures. Norway is an outlier. Electric vehicle sales are heavily subsidized and EVs currently account for 90% of the market. This year, EV market share also expanded in Denmark, Belgium, and France.
However, in Germany, once the largest electric car market, the adoption rate of electric cars has declined simply because the government has ended subsidies.
Regulations not only affect demand but also play a large role in the cars sold. Matthias Schmidt, a Berlin-based electric vehicle analyst, has long predicted that European electric vehicle sales growth will slow in 2024. The reason is that January 1, 2025, is the date when the EU will take the next big step towards zero-emission vehicles, meaning lower average carbon emissions. The carbon footprint of the cars sold by each manufacturer must be reduced by 15% compared to 2021.
Ford Puma. Photo: SYSPEO/Sipa/Rex/Shutterstock
Therefore, this rule is a big incentive for automakers to focus their efforts on electric vehicles next year. Schmidt argues that the European industry is experiencing a “replay” of the situation experienced in 2019 when manufacturers held back sales of electric cars before mass-launching new models in 2020.
Sure enough, automakers are releasing new mass-market models at just the right time. Renault's electric 5 hatchback will cost less than €25,000 (£21,430) when it goes on sale this autumn, while Ford plans to launch an electric version of Britain's best-selling car, the Ford Puma, later this year.
A man helps assemble an Opel Grandland X SUV at the Opel factory in Eisenach, eastern Germany. Photo: Martin Schutt/dpa/AFP/Getty Images
Stellantis, which owns the Vauxhall, Peugeot-Fiat, and Chrysler brands, is also joining the rush, unveiling the Vauxhall/Opel Grandland electric SUV on Tuesday. Still, the company's CEO, Carlos Tavares, complained bitterly about how regulations are encouraging the switch to electric cars.
This week, he slammed Britain's Transport Secretary Mark Harper over the government's zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, which forces car manufacturers to increase the proportion of electric vehicles they sell. He later told journalists that the mandate was a “terrible” policy because it would force automakers to introduce electric models too quickly.
“The result of this is that everyone starts pushing BEVs (battery electric vehicles), pushing metals into the market, completely destroying profitability and destroying businesses,” he said.
Schmidt said the automakers’ complaints could have ulterior motives. EU rules will ban the sale of most internal combustion engines by 2035 but are expected to be revised in 2026.
“Many manufacturers are now complaining that it's unrealistic to meet these goals, but that's lobbying by stealth,” Schmidt said. “They do it so often that it's almost like a boy-werewolf affair. There’s definitely an ulterior motive to their moans.”
But other manufacturers have already delayed that shift, which means extending the sales period for still-profitable gasoline models. In the United States, General Motors postponed production at a plant in Michigan last year, and Ford also postponed construction of a plant in Kentucky. And in the UK, luxury car maker Bentley announced last month that it would postpone the launch of its first battery car by one year, until 2026.
“Manufacturers are definitely struggling strategically at the moment,” Luhmann said. “They're playing around with the timing of the model right now, but they're not delaying it too much. If they don't, they're going to miss out in terms of market share.”
Perhaps the biggest reason why European and American automakers are unlikely to switch gears toward EVs is China. China sales growth may have slowed in the first quarter of 2024 compared to a year ago, but still exceeded 1 million units, according to industry data cited by Reuters. Many Chinese automakers, including leader BYD and cash-rich new entrants such as mobile phone maker Xiaomi, are fighting to dominate their home market and capture a new role as the world's biggest car exporter. There is.
During a recent visit to China, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke out against protectionism, keenly aware that imposing penalties on Chinese EVs would lead to swift retaliation against German automakers, but that Chinese manufacturers remain He said there needs to be access to the market.
Massive competition is fierce for electric car makers, with even Tesla having to cut prices to keep selling its cars. The competition will give auto industry executives sleepless nights and could force some companies to face mergers or bankruptcies, causing job losses. But prices could fall even further, making electric cars cheaper than gasoline cars.
“This is potentially good for consumers,” Ian Henry said. “Whether that's a good thing for manufacturers who are trying to make a profit is another question.”
The Federal Court of Australia mandated that Elon Musk’s content be hidden from users.
X, along with Mehta, was instructed by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant to promptly remove any material depicting “unreasonable or offensive violence with serious consequences or details” within 24 hours or risk facing fines.
The content in question was a video allegedly showing Bishop Mar Mari Emanuel being stabbed to death during a livestreamed service at the Assyrian Church of the Good Shepherd in Wakely.
Although X claimed compliance with the request, they intended to challenge the order in court.
During a hearing, eSafety barrister Christopher Tran informed Judge Jeffrey Kennett that X had geographically restricted access to the posts containing the video, rendering them inaccessible in Australia but available globally through VPN connections.
Tran argued that this noncompliance with online safety laws necessitated the removal of the content globally as an interim step.
X’s legal representative, Marcus Hoyne, requested an adjournment, citing the late hour in San Francisco where X is based and lack of instructions from his client.
Judge Kennett proposed issuing an interim order until the next hearing, requiring the post’s removal and global access blockage until a specified date and time.
Treasurer Stephen Jones criticized X as a “factory of trolls and misinformation” and affirmed the government’s readiness to combat legal challenges from the company.
The eSafety Commissioner clarified that the notice solely concerned the video footage and not any commentary surrounding the incident.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasized the harmful impact of violent content on social media and condemned X for noncompliance with the removal order.
Meta purportedly followed the directive, while X accused the regulator of “global censorship” and announced intentions to challenge the order in court.
Treasurer Jones vowed to challenge X’s stance, emphasizing the need for online platforms to adhere to laws and maintain safety.
Regulators collaborated with various companies, including Google, Microsoft, Snap, and TikTok, to remove the contentious content.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton voiced support for eSafety’s actions and criticized X for considering itself above the law.
Green Party spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young called upon Elon Musk to address the issue in parliament and urged tech companies to act responsibly.
This confrontation is the latest in the ongoing dispute between X and the eSafety Commissioner, which includes legal battles over compliance with safety regulations.
X faced legal action for allegedly bullying a trans man on Twitter, prompting the company to block access to the content in Australia, while filing a lawsuit challenging the decision.
BLaine computer interface technology is at the heart of movies like Ready Player One, The Matrix, and Avatar. But outside of the world of science fiction, BCIs are used on Earth to help paralyzed people communicate, to study dreams, and to control robots.
Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk announced in January that his neurotechnology company Neuralink had implanted the first computer chip in a human. In February, he announced that patients can now control a computer mouse with their thoughts.
Neuralink’s purpose is noble. It is about helping people who are unable to communicate or interact with their environment. But details are scant. The project quickly raised alarms about brain privacy, the risk of hacking, and other potential issues.
Dr Steve Kassem, senior research scientist at Neuroscience Research Australia, said the Neuralink news should be taken with a “large pinch of salt”. It’s not the first company to do neural implants, he says. In fact, Australia is a ‘hotspot’ for relevant neurological research.
Does the patient dream of electric sheep?
The University of Technology Sydney project, which has received millions of dollars in funding from the Department of Defense, is now in its third phase to demonstrate how soldiers can use brain signals to control robotic dogs.
“We succeeded [demonstrating] Handa can use his brain to issue commands that direct the dog to reach its destination completely hands-free…so the dog can use its hands for other purposes. ” he says.
Soldiers use assisted reality glasses with special graphene interfaces to issue brain signal commands to send the robot dog to different locations. Lin said he is working on making the technology multi-user, faster and able to control other vehicles such as drones.
Meanwhile, Sydney company Neurode has developed a headset to help people with ADHD by monitoring the brain and sending electronic pulses to help them cope with changes. Another his UTS team is working on it. dream machine, which aims to reconstruct dreams from brain signals. It uses artificial intelligence and brainwave data to generate images from your subconscious mind.
And then there are the implants.
good signal
Synchron started at the University of Melbourne and is now based in New York. it is, Mesh inserted into blood vessels in the brain This allows patients to use the Internet by transmitting signals that operate similar to Bluetooth. People can shop, send emails, and communicate online using technology that controls computers.
Synchron has implanted and monitored mesh in many patients, including one in Australia. Patient P4, who has motor neuron disease, had mesh implanted several years ago.
“I think he’s had over 200 sessions,” says Gil Lind, Sychron’s senior director of advanced technology. “He is still progressing well with his implant treatment and is working very closely with us.
“He was able to use the computer through the system…As the disease progressed, it became very difficult to use the physical buttons.
“This allows for online banking, communication with caregivers, [with] Someone I love. ”
Dr Christina Maher from the University of Sydney’s Brain and Mind Center said Synchron’s technology is “miles ahead” of Elon Musk’s, and is more sophisticated and safer as it does not require open brain surgery. Stated. The researchers have also published more than 25 papers, she said.
“As for Neuralink, we don’t know much about it.
“My understanding is that the top priority for them is to test the effectiveness and safety of surgical robots…so they are focusing more on the robotic side of things, and this is a commercial It makes sense from a perspective.”
Need for regulation
But amidst the hype and promise of neurotechnology, there are concerns about who will have access to the beneficial technologies and how they will be protected.
Maher says it’s important to balance the need for innovation with appropriate regulation while allowing access to those who really need it. She says the “gap between the haves and have-nots” is being discussed not just in Australia but around the world.
“As brain-computer interfaces become more common, people will be divided into those who can afford them and those who cannot,” she says.
Lind said Synchron is focused on those who have the most to gain, such as quadriplegic patients. “We want to expand it as much as possible. We hope to reach a bigger market and help more people in need,” he says.
A personal and pivotal moment for him, he says, was seeing the faces of the clinicians, team, and family of the first patient who received a successful implant.
At Neuralink, Kasem warns that there are always risks when technology is developed by a company that exists to make a profit. “A cell phone plan for the brain is not what we want,” he says.
“And what if this gets hacked? There’s always a risk when it’s not a closed system.”
But it’s more likely that Neuralink will use people’s data.
“Like every app on your phone or computer, Neuralink monitors everything it can. Everything it can,” Kasem says.
“It will be stored somewhere.”
Protect your brain data
Maher agrees that data is a big issue, saying the risk of hacking remains when devices are connected to the internet. She says much of the social media, biometrics, and other data is already out there, but her brain’s data is different.
“meanwhile [BCI companies] They are subject to the same data privacy laws…The difference in many people’s minds is that brain data is very private and it’s your personal thoughts.
“The big picture here is that once you start recording large amounts of brain data, there are absolutely megatons of data out there,” she says.
Despite privacy concerns, Kasem says interacting with the brain has exciting potential.
“We need to remember how powerful and important the brain is. All you are, all you have been, and all you will ever be is your brain and nothing else.” he says.
Quoting American physicist Emerson Pugh, he says the brain has trillions of neural connections that lead to “infinite opportunities.” hand. ”
OpenAI criticized Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the company in a legal response filed on Monday, calling the Tesla CEO’s claims “frivolous” and driven by “advancing commercial interests.”
The filing is a rebuttal to Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI earlier this month, accusing the company of reneging on its commitment to benefiting humanity. OpenAI refuted many of the key allegations in Musk’s lawsuit, denying the existence of what he referred to as an “establishment agreement.”
The filing highlighted the complexity and lack of factual basis for Musk’s claims, pointing out the absence of any actual agreement mentioned in the pleadings.
The conflict between OpenAI and Musk has been escalating since Musk’s lawsuit, intensifying the ongoing disagreement between Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Although they co-founded the nonprofit in 2015, disputes over company direction and control led to Musk’s departure three years later. The relationship between Musk and Altman has soured as OpenAI gained recognition for products like ChatGPT and DALL-E.
Musk’s lawsuit accuses OpenAI of straying from its original mission as a nonprofit organization focused on sharing technology for humanity’s benefit, alleging that Altman received significant investments from Microsoft. OpenAI denied these claims in a recent blog post, stating that Musk supported the shift to a for-profit entity but wanted sole control.
OpenAI’s response painted Musk as envious and resentful of the company since starting his own commercial AI venture. The filing dismissed the notion of a founding agreement between Musk and Altman, labeling it as a “fiction” created by Musk.
According to the response, Musk’s motivation for suing OpenAI is to bolster his competitive position in the industry, rather than genuine concerns for human progress.
In a court filing on Tuesday, a Delaware judge ruled in favor of investors who contested Elon Musk’s $56 billion pay package from Tesla, stating that it was excessive. The judge concluded that the compensation had been improperly established by Tesla’s board of directors and revoked it. If the decision is upheld in a potential appeal, Tesla’s board would need to create a new compensation plan for Musk.
Elon Musk responded on Twitter/X, saying, “Never incorporate a company in Delaware.”
Five years ago, Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta filed a lawsuit accusing the company’s CEO, Elon Musk, of improperly directing negotiations on compensation packages and the board of directors lacking independence. The court’s decision directed Tornetta to cooperate with Musk’s legal team regarding the judge’s order, which can be appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Musk’s compensation trial in November 2022 revealed that the money would be used to fund interplanetary travel. He testified, “This is how we’re going to get humans to Mars, so Tesla can help potentially achieve that.”
Tesla’s board argued that the package was necessary to keep Elon Musk committed to the electric car maker. The judge disagreed, noting that the defense failed to prove the need for such an unprecedented compensation plan. She instructed the parties to work on the final order implementing her decision.
The plaintiffs’ legal team also argued that the board had a duty to either reduce Musk’s salary or find another CEO and ensure that he worked full-time at Tesla instead of focusing on other projects.
Amit Batish of executive compensation research firm Equilar estimated in 2022 that Musk’s package was about six times the combined compensation of the 200 highest-paid executives in 2021.
In July, Tesla directors agreed to return $735 million to the company to settle shareholder claims that the company had overpaid in a separate lawsuit.
Is there a bigger hypocrite in the world when it comes to free speech than Elon Musk?
I say this as someone who wishes Elon Musk really cared about free speech. In my opinion, social media companies are censoring their users excessively. Countless restrictive rules often backfire on those who promote them. The suspension process is often opaque and arbitrary. After all, a public forum filled with the frank and free exchange of opposing views, one that clearly favors allowing more fringe speech than prohibited speech, , that's a good thing.
But it was not created by Mr. Musk, a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist.” He has built a system that is the exact opposite of what he stands for, and is more arbitrary and opaque than the old Twitter, which he has relentlessly criticized, or even Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms. is. And he uses his power more than anyone on Donald Trump's side to retaliate against his critics.
The most recent example came earlier this week when a group of left-wing journalists and commentators, including The Intercept's brilliant reporter Ken Klippenstein, mysteriously stopped From Twitter (sorry, I always refuse to call you “X”) without any warning or notice as to why. The only thing all the testimonies had in common was that they criticized Israel's war in Gaza.
After sustained protests, their accounts were eventually restored. Musk claimed, without any evidence, that it was due to a spam filter that captured real accounts. If you want to claim it's a coincidence, it might make sense without thinking about it. But this isn't his worst offense in the past six weeks.
When the liberal advocacy site Media Matters published a report alleging that Musk was allowing ads to run next to hate speech, Musk did not simply denounce hate speech on his platform. Without, sued them.too It's not the first time Musk sued the advocacy group last year. Apparently, it's okay to criticize him. “The whole point of free speech is to allow people who disagree with you to express their opinions.” He said This week – unless you also send criticism to potential ad buyers.
Making matters worse, some Republican states attorney general Perhaps seeking favors to later pad his campaign coffers from the world's richest man, he is trying to capitalize on Musk's enemies this week. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an “investigation” into media matters, and Missouri's attorney general is following suit.
Even if you're not a Media Matters fan, you'll know how incredibly chilling this would be if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if George Soros tried to bankrupt every right-wing website that accuses him of being behind various left-wing conspiracies. I visit these sites almost every day.
Examples of Mr. Musk's hypocrisy are so frequent that it's difficult to keep track of them all. Musk was once caught taking advice from a right-wing online friend about which left-wing accounts to access. No next time. Sometimes it looks like he's doing it on purpose throttled link Go to the news site he hates. Former Twitter employers say that early in his tenure as owner, Musk made a 180-degree break from his own supposed principles when faced with pressure from advertisers. go from From a stance of entrusting everything to a stance of lowering everything.
The most egregious episode was the controversy surrounding the account @ElonJet that tracked Musk's private jet. First, Musk insisted he would allow it. And the moment he felt he was in even the slightest danger, he renamed the private jet data, which has been published on every plane for decades, “assassination coordinates.”And he Paused Journalists who tweeted about the account were not given any warnings.
While his content moderation decisions have garnered the most attention, what he's done behind the scenes is arguably even more nefarious. He regularly dismantled Twitter's excellent legal department. stuck It violated users' actual free speech rights in court and sought to protect their anonymity in the event a powerful organization filed a lawsuit to expose them. And after Musk's first six months at the helm, Twitter has challenged numerous legal orders against its users. 100% compliance!
Mr. Musk's huge business interests in China mean he doesn't care about the Chinese people's right to free speech (or lack thereof). He refuses to weigh in on the many controversies of the world's largest dictatorship, which has complete authoritarian control of the Internet. It's very likely that defenders of free expression will wholeheartedly welcome his voice, but then again, he doesn't actually care about free speech, so no one should hold their breath. not here.
Of course, this was all completely predictable.in his own companymusk force on employees sign a restrictive non-discrimination agreement; He tried to destroy the whistleblower. Tesla once reportedly tried to get customers to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in order to have their cars repaired. There is no indication that his professed principles are genuine.
Imagine if Musk's professed love for free speech wasn't entirely false. As the world's richest person, he could have great influence. He could create a strong, transparent appeals process for those suspended for allegedly violating the rules. He could hire a large legal team to protect users' anonymity from litigants while defending censorship orders from all governments around the world. If it means that some right-wing bastards and trolls are returned to service as a byproduct of a principled decision supporting freedom of expression, that might be a good deal.
Instead, Mr. Musk took what could have been a powerful strategy and principle for him, as well as for true defenders of freedom of expression, and turned it into a snake oil salesman's marketing plan. I changed it to
With more than 1.17 billion phone connections and 881 million internet subscribers, India aims to modernize connectivity and introduce new services such as satellite broadband just months before general elections. Congress passed a telecommunications bill that replaced the 100-year-old rule.
India’s upper house of parliament on Thursday approved the Telecommunications Bill 2023 by voice vote, with many opposition leaders absent due to suspension, just a day after the bill was passed by the lower house. The bill would repeal rules dating back to 1885 during the telegraph era, giving Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government a mandate to use and manage telecommunications services and networks in the interest of national security, and to It gives the authority to monitor data. There is also a basis for the Indian government to intercept communications.
A newly passed telecommunications bill also allows spectrum to be allocated to satellite-based services without participating in an auction, and OneWeb wants to launch satellite broadband services in the world’s most populous country. The move is to give preferential treatment to companies such as , Starlink, and Amazon’s Kuiper. A long-standing demand for a “management process” surrounding spectrum allocation auctions. India’s Jio is trying to compete with three global companies with its homegrown satellite broadband service, but has relatively limited resources and has previously faced administrative opposition to its spectrum allocation model. Ta.
The bill also requires biometric authentication for subscribers to limit fraud and limits the number of SIM cards each subscriber may use. Additionally, it includes provisions for civil monetary penalties of up to $12,000 for violations of certain provisions and up to $600,400 for violations of conditions established by law.
The bill includes amendments to the Indian Telecom Regulatory Authority Act, 1997, targeting the telecom regulator, as the Indian government seeks to attract foreign investors by increasing private participation. These amendments would allow executives with more than 30 years of private sector experience to be appointed to regulatory agency positions. The chairman can become a member if he or she has served for 25 years or more. The country previously allowed only retired civil servants to serve as chairmen and commissioners of regulators.
“This is a very comprehensive and very large-scale structural reform born out of the vision of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji. The legacy of old fraudsters in the telecom sector will remain and this bill Arrangements will be made to make the telecom sector a rising sector through this,” said Ashwini Vaishno, India’s Telecom Minister, while introducing the bill in Parliament.
Interestingly, the Telecommunications Bill excludes the term “OTT” that was used in the first draft last year, setting out regulations for over-the-top (OTT) messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram. . Industry groups such as the Internet and Mobile Association of India, whose members include Google and Meta, have praised the changes. However, the scope of the regulation is not clearly defined throughout the document. Shivnath Thukral, head of India public policy at Meta, warned in an internal email that the government may have the power in the future to classify OTT apps as telecommunications services and subject them to licensing regimes. report By Indian outlet Moneycontrol.
Digital rights activists and privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the ambiguity surrounding the regulations and the lack of public consultation on the final version of the bill.
Apal Gupta, founding director of the digital rights group Internet Freedom Foundation, said at a public event earlier this week that the bill lacks safeguards for those targeted.
“The Ministry of Telecommunications still refuses to create a central repository on internet shutdowns, thereby reducing transparency. We are completely ignoring the core of the required telecommunications rules.” he emphasized.
Digital rights group Access Now called for the bill to be withdrawn and a new draft to be drafted through consultation.
“This bill is regressive because it strengthens colonial-era governments’ powers to intercept communications and shut down the internet. It undermines end-to-end encryption, which is critical to privacy.” said Namrata Maheshwari, Asia-Pacific policy advisor at Access Now, in a prepared statement.
The bill is currently awaiting approval from the President of India to become an official law.
< p > Ad sales for Elon Musk’s social media platform X in 2023 are expected to fall to about $2.5 billion. Bloomberg News reported Tuesday. Several companies, including Comcast and Walt Disney, stopped advertising on the platform after Musk last month agreed to a post on X (formerly Twitter) that claimed Jews were inciting hatred against white people. There was a pause. Joe Benarroch, head of business operations at Company X, told Reuters: “This report does not reflect the full scope of our business as sources relied upon by Bloomberg do not provide accurate and comprehensive details. “It gives an incomplete view.” Last month, Musk agreed with a post by X that claimed Jews were inciting hatred against white people. Getty Images for The New York Times < / p >
< p > As a publicly traded company, X’s revenue from advertising services in the last four quarters totaled $4.7 billion for the second half of 2021 and the first half of 2022, according to LSEG data. The company generated more than $600 million in advertising revenue in each of the first three quarters of 2023 and expects similar results this quarter, the report added, citing people familiar with the matter. Since Musk’s acquisition in October 2022, U.S. monthly ad revenue has fallen by at least 55% year over year every month, according to third-party data provided to Reuters in October. The company generated just over $600 million in ad revenue in each of the first three quarters of 2023, according to Bloomberg. zumapress.com < / p >
< p > Advertising sales account for 70% to 75% of X’s total revenue. Management had targeted $3 billion in revenue from advertising and subscription fees in 2023, but the company is far from reaching that number, according to the report. Musk also said in July that Twitter’s cash flow remains negative due to a nearly 50% drop in advertising revenue and high debt. < / p >
Republican critics were furious after the Federal Communications Commission rejected nearly $900 million in subsidies for Elon Musk’s Starlink internet service, calling it a revenge move by the Biden administration. did.
Musk’s SpaceX was appealing a 2022 FCC move that denied the company access to about $886 million in subsidies as part of a government program to boost rural internet service. .
The five-member FCC, led by Democratic-appointed Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, affirmed the decision on Tuesday, finding that Starlink “has failed to demonstrate that it can deliver its promised services.”
republican party FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr objects. In the decision, Musk claimed that “President Biden has given the green light to federal agencies” after the billionaire bought Twitter for $44 billion last year.
In August, the Department of Justice sued SpaceX, accusing it of discriminating against refugees and asylees in its hiring practices. SpaceX fired back, arguing that the federal government’s lawsuit is unconstitutional.
Kerr said the FCC’s denial of the subsidy “certainly falls within the Biden administration’s pattern of regulatory harassment.”
Another Republican, Nathan Symington, agreed with Kerr and argued that his colleagues at the FCC improperly set SpaceX’s 2025 performance standards three years early.
Starlink’s application for nearly $900 million in government grants was denied. AFP (via Getty Images)The recent failure of SpaceX’s Starship rocket has been cited as a potential cause for concern. zumapress.com
“What’s the point in having an agreement to build service by 2025 if the FCC can keep it there until 2022 on a whim?” Symington said.
When the FCC initially denied SpaceX’s grant application, Musk’s company had already won approval to provide satellite-based, high-speed broadband Internet service to about 642,000 rural locations in 35 U.S. states. Was. At the time, Rosenworcel expressed concern that Starlink’s internet was not reaching the “promised speeds.”
The agency this week cited some of its concerns over the recent failure of SpaceX’s Starship, which exploded shortly after liftoff last month.
Elon Musk criticized the FCC for this decision. Reuters
“After a careful legal, technical and policy review, the FCC has determined that this applicant will be eligible for approximately $900 million in Universal Service Funds over approximately 10 years,” Rosenworcel said in a statement. We judged that the burden was not fulfilled.”
Musk personally slammed the FCC’s decision, writing to X that Starlink is “the only company actually solving rural broadband at scale!”
“What actually happened was that the companies that lobbied for this large allocation (not us) thought they were going to win, but instead they lost to Starlink. So now they’re changing the rules so that SpaceX can’t compete,” Musk said.
It makes no sense. Starlink is the only company that is actually solving rural broadband at scale.
They should probably disband the program and return the funds to taxpayers, but not send them to people who aren’t doing their jobs.
Musk has frequently clashed with the Biden administration since President Biden took office in 2020. The billionaire called Biden a “wet-sock puppet” and accused the president of disrespecting Tesla despite the company’s leading role in the development of electric cars. The government will support you.
Meanwhile, Musk’s business faces multiple federal investigations, including an ongoing investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration into the company’s Autopilot self-driving assist technology.
Tesla on Wednesday announced a major recall of 2 million vehicles over concerns that the vehicles lacked adequate safety features to “prevent driver misuse.”
Grimes introduced an exiciting artificial intelligence device known as Grok on Thursday. Grimes stated there was no relation to the fact that Elon Musk’s xAI company released a chatbot called Grok last month..
The origin of Musk’s Grok chatbot name is unknown, but Grimes’ rocket-shaped stuffed animal drew inspiration from her children.
Grimes recently announced Grok with a video on her X account and mentioned that the name shares a resemblance with her former partner’s name. She described the toy as a “benevolent AI for humans.”
Grimes released an AI-powered fuzzy rocket toy called Grok on Thursday. X/Curio Beta
“Believably, by the time we realized that the Grok team was also using this name, it was a bit late to rename both AIs, so we now have two AIs named Grok. Can’t wait for them to become friends.” Grimes shared on Thursday.
Grimes, 35, formerly known as Claire Boucher, shares three children with the 52-year-old billionaire: 3-year-old X Æ A-Xii and 2-year-old Exa Dark Siderel Musk.
Curio informed the Post that “Grok” originated from “Grocket” and was created because the Grimes children were exposed to rockets through Musk’s ownership of SpaceX.
(Absurdly, by the time we realized that the Grok team was also using this name, it was too late to rename both AIs, so now the AI named Grok is There are two of them. I can’t wait for them to become friends. I can’t believe it. Even the AI can’t avoid showing up to school and meeting other kids…
According to the legal encyclopedia NoroTwo companies can trademark the same name if they belong to “different trademark classes” and “the two products are not related to each other and are unlikely to cause confusion.”
Musk’s language model, named Grok, is distinctly different from Grimes’ fuzzy Grok. Grok includes Curio Voice Box, which runs on OpenAI’s large-scale language model featuring Grimes’ voice.
Grimes is also an investor and advisor to Curio, the paper said.
OpenAI’s boss Sam Altman used a new AI tool to mock Musk’s Grok, calling the response “creepy boomer humor.”
Last month, Altman told ChatGPT Builder to “become a chatbot that answers questions in a way that goes from awkward shock to laugh, with some awkward Boomer humor.”
The bot responded with: “Great, we have a chatbot set up. Its name is Grok. What do you think of this name, or would you like something else?”
Musk fired back with a post he said was generated by Grok.
“GPT-4? GPT-It’s like snoring!” the sarcastic bot reportedly said when Musk asked about ChatGPT.
It wasn’t immediately clear why Grimes didn’t choose the AI tool created by Musk, given their on-and-off relationship of five years and their shared children.
Musk, who is the father of a total of 11 children with three different women, has not yet commented on Grimes’ innovative toy.
Musk and Grimes were in an on-again, off-again relationship from 2018 to 2022. Getty Images
engineer Toy brands announced at X Grok was one of three beta characters available for purchase for $99 until December 17th at 12pm PT.
Curio touts its AI-powered “cheerful rocket” to provide “screen-free fun” including “endless conversations” and “educational playtime” for kids ages 3 and up .
“I can’t believe that even AI can’t avoid showing up at school and meeting other kids with the same name lol,” she added.
Musk and Grimes are currently embroiled in a custody battle over their three children. Ai A Sea (pictured) is 3 years old, Exa Dark Siderel Musk is 2 years old, and Techno Mechanicus, known as Tau, is 1 year old. Getty Images of Time
The Post has reached out to Curio and Musk for comment.
Grimes is getting into the toy business with “Glock,” the character she voices for Curio’s new line of screenless AI plush toys.
The toy is not affiliated with Grok, an AI chatbot backed by Grimes’ ex-Elon Musk. Musk described xAI’s Grok as having a “rebellious personality” and a willingness to answer “tough questions that most other AI systems would refuse.” That sounds vulgar if you ask me.
Grok, Gabbo, and Grem, on the other hand, are designed to encourage play. In a conversation with Misha Sallee and his partner Sam Eaton, the Curio founder said: Published on Curio’s blogGrimes said she encourages children’s creativity early on through dynamic conversations rather than a static list of prompts.
“The idea of bringing more imagination or making it easier to access imagination within one’s current existence, rather than just observing it within other beings such as screens, movies, and books. I like it,” she said.
in Curio announcement videoGrimes said she doesn’t want her kids to be “in front of a screen” but is “really busy.”
Image credits: antique
Curio says the toys can have full conversations, allowing children (or adults) to practice their communication skills. Glock is an anthropomorphic rocket ship, voiced by Grimes. There’s Gabo, who looks like a Game Boy stuffed animal with arms and legs. And then there’s Grem, a cyan rabbit with hearts on his cheeks. The beta version of the toy is Pre-order possible Through Sunday, the price is $99 each. Recommended for children from 3 years old to her 7 years old. Grimes and Musk’s oldest child is named XÆA-Xii and she is 3 years old.
The stuffed animals answer questions about how rocket ships are made and play games with the user, encouraging the development of children’s listening and conversation skills. Inside the stuffed animal is a rechargeable, Wi-Fi-connected speaker and microphone, connected to an app that parents can set up and monitor interactions with their children.
“When I think about kids, my goal is to keep as many hearts out of this as possible. Basically, how many iPads can we replace?” Grimes said with Eaton and Sally. He said this in a conversation.
She later added: “I think the more we verbalize things, the more we’re forcing people to use their working memory. You know, there are little things here and there that make our brains just a little bit better. ”
Grimes became involved with Curio after answering a question. post “Children’s teddy bears talk to children and give them peace of mind at night.” About the future of AI-integrated toys.grimes answered “It would be great if it was safe,” she said, and she would be happy if children could have “a culture ship in a teddy bear at heart.”
The line launches about a week after a competitor to Musk’s ChatGPT (named Grok) began rolling out to X Premium Plus subscribers.
“Grimes is the voice of the toy, and this rocket just so happens to be named Grok and was made before the announcement of the Grok AI, so there’s some interesting overlap between him and Grimes,” Sally said. said in a conversation.
Curio has filed a trademark for Grok on September 12 this year. xAI files trademark for Grok on October 23rd. Curio’s Grok stands for Grocket, as the Grimes children spend a lot of time around rockets since their father is the owner of SpaceX. The Washington Post reported.
grimes and musk Currently in custody battle The couple has filed child custody lawsuits in California and Texas over their three children.
(Absurdly, by the time we realized that the Grok team was also using this name, it was too late to rename both AIs, so now the AI named Grok is There are two of them. I can’t wait for them to become friends. I can’t believe it. Even the AI can’t avoid showing up to school and meeting other kids…
in post Regarding the name, Grimes said that by the time Curio realized that xAI’s Grok team was also using that name, “it was too late for either AI to change its name.”
“I currently have two AIs named Grok, and I can’t wait for them to be friends,” she said. “I can’t believe that even an AI can’t avoid showing up at school and meeting other kids with the same name lol.”
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter for $44 billion raised questions about his plans for the social media platform. Musk envisioned transforming Twitter into an “everything app” called X, similar to China’s WeChat, offering a variety of services like online discussions, video calls, podcasts, and even banking. While the idea of creating a platform where free speech is valued might seem noble, the execution has been plagued by poor planning and decision-making.
Musk’s tenure as the owner of Twitter has been turbulent, mirroring his own controversial presence on the platform. He made immediate changes, firing executives and laying off thousands of employees. Advertisers became concerned about Musk’s lax stance on content moderation, leading to a decline in revenue and potential bankruptcy. Musk’s attempt to bolster revenue by offering paid perks like verification ticks and edit buttons backfired when several fake accounts gained verification status, causing confusion among users. Reinstating banned accounts and changing the brand name to X further eroded Twitter’s reputation.
Critics argue that Musk’s plans for Twitter lacked focus and clear vision. While he may have grand ideas, the reality is that Twitter’s purpose was muddled and lost in the process. The company’s value plummeted, and its reputation suffered. The future of X remains uncertain, and if the current state of affairs continues, more users may abandon the platform. Musk’s ambitions for an all-encompassing “super app” like WeChat may be too ambitious and detrimental to the core purpose of Twitter.
Despite the challenges and skepticism surrounding Musk’s ownership of Twitter, for many users, X remains a popular social media platform where real-time updates are crucial. Some experts believe that X could potentially rival other platforms like Mastodon and Meta, offering a more streamlined experience. However, it’s uncertain whether Musk can truly accomplish his vision for X, considering the current state of the platform. While Musk may take credit for the “death of Twitter” and the rise of X, it remains to be seen how far the platform can soar before losing its purpose and losing more users.
Elon Musk’s X has started testing potential sign-up fees for new users.
The company formerly known as twitter introduced a fee of $1 (82 pence). new zealand And that Philippinesmost of the main features are behind a paywall.
New accounts that do not pay will not be able to post anything or interact directly with other users.
Instead, you are limited to viewing and listening to content and following other accounts.
X said the move was aimed at “reducing spam, platform manipulation, and bot activity.”
musk We have long complained about the presence of fake accounts on the platform; and tried to use his concerns to get out of the contract to buy it last year..
The trials in New Zealand and the Philippines came after the billionaire businessman discussed plans to introduce “small monthly payments” to all users.
Speaking at an event with the Israeli Prime Minister Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Musk said last month that the fee would help fight “a horde of bots.”
Use Chrome Browser for a more accessible video player
1:14
Mr. Musk starts charging fees for using X
Fees will make X “difficult to operate”
Since Musk took ownership of the company, much of his focus has been on monetizing Company X’s user base, with advertiser spending declining due to concerns over his moderation policies. ing.
X already offers a premium subscription for £9.60 per month. This gives users a verification check, allows them to write longer posts or edit existing ones, and gives their account priority visibility in search results.
Musk acknowledged that the new $1 fee “will not completely stop bots,” but argued that it will “make it 1,000 times harder to manipulate the platform.”
More science and technology news: ADHD in adults is associated with dementia risk MI5 chief warns of AI threat from China
This means that Company X israel-hamas war To spread.
EU officials warned Musk to take actionsaid it violated the block’s new online content rules.
Misleading content includes video game footage purporting to depict scenes of conflict and reusing unrelated war clips.
Later, X announced changes to the Community Notes feature. This allows volunteer posters to attach fact-checks to their posts, making them more visible if other users find them useful.
However, there are concerns that the tool is being manipulated, and all notes must include a source.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
