elon musk

elon-musk-declares-“it-is-war”-on-ad-industry-as-x-sues-over-“illegal-boycott”

Elon Musk declares “it is war” on ad industry as X sues over “illegal boycott”

elon musk, Policy, x advertising boycott / /

Elon vs. advertisers —

“We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war,” Musk writes.

–

Illustration of a shovel being used to bury the Twitter logo

Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Elon Musk’s X Corp. today sued the World Federation of Advertisers and several large corporations, claiming they “conspired, along with dozens of non-defendant co-conspirators, to collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from the social network formerly known as Twitter.

“We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war,” Musk wrote today, a little over eight months after telling boycotting advertisers to “go fuck yourself.”

X’s lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas targets a World Federation of Advertisers initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The other defendants are Unilever PLC; Unilever United States; Mars, Incorporated; CVS Health Corporation; and Ørsted A/S. Those companies are all members of GARM. X itself is still listed as one of the group’s members.

“This is an antitrust action relating to a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the United States… Concerned that Twitter might deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising on social media platforms set through GARM, the conspirators collectively acted to enforce Twitter’s adherence to those standards through the boycott,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit seeks treble damages to be calculated based on the “actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial.” X also wants “a permanent injunction under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, enjoining Defendants from continuing to conspire with respect to the purchase of advertising from Plaintiff.”

The lawsuit came several weeks after Musk wrote that X “has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket,” and called for “criminal prosecution.” Musk’s complaints were buoyed by a House Judiciary Committee report claiming that “the extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms.”

Yaccarino claims “illegal boycott” is stain on industry

We contacted all of the organizations named as defendants in the lawsuit and will update this article if any provide a response.

An advertising industry watchdog group called the Check My Ads Institute, which is not involved in the lawsuit, said that Musk’s claims should fail under the First Amendment. “Advertisers have a First Amendment right to choose who and what they want to be associated with… Elon Musk and X executives have the right, protected by the First Amendment, to say what they want online, even when it’s inaccurate, and advertisers have the right to keep their ads away from it,” the group said.

X CEO Linda Yaccarino posted an open letter to advertisers claiming that the alleged “illegal boycott” is “a stain on a great industry, and cannot be allowed to continue.”

“The illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars… To those who broke the law, we say enough is enough. We are compelled to seek justice for the harm that has been done by these and potentially additional defendants, depending what the legal process reveals,” Yaccarino wrote.

Yaccarino also sought to gain support from X users in a video message. “These organizations targeted our company and you, our users,” she said.

Musk followed up with a post encouraging other companies to sue advertisers and claimed that advertisers could face “criminal liability via the RICO Act.” X previously filed lawsuits against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and Media Matters for America, blaming both for advertising losses.

X doesn’t provide public earnings reports because Musk took the company private after buying Twitter. A recent New York Times article said that “in the second quarter of this year, X earned $114 million in revenue in the United States, a 25 percent decline from the first quarter and a 53 percent decline from the previous year.”

Elon Musk declares “it is war” on ad industry as X sues over “illegal boycott” Read More »

elon-musk-sues-openai,-sam-altman-for-making-a-“fool”-out-of-him

Elon Musk sues OpenAI, Sam Altman for making a “fool” out of him

agi, AI, AI safety, Artificial Intelligence, chatbot, elon musk, existential risks, generative ai, GPT-4, GPT-4o, grok, microsoft, openai, Policy / /

“Altman’s long con” —

Elon Musk asks court to void Microsoft’s exclusive deal with OpenAI.

–

Elon Musk and Sam Altman share the stage in 2015, the same year that Musk alleged that Altman's

Enlarge / Elon Musk and Sam Altman share the stage in 2015, the same year that Musk alleged that Altman’s “deception” began.

After withdrawing his lawsuit in June for unknown reasons, Elon Musk has revived a complaint accusing OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman of fraudulently inducing Musk to contribute $44 million in seed funding by promising that OpenAI would always open-source its technology and prioritize serving the public good over profits as a permanent nonprofit.

Instead, Musk alleged that Altman and his co-conspirators—”preying on Musk’s humanitarian concern about the existential dangers posed by artificial intelligence”—always intended to “betray” these promises in pursuit of personal gains.

As OpenAI’s technology advanced toward artificial general intelligence (AGI) and strove to surpass human capabilities, “Altman set the bait and hooked Musk with sham altruism then flipped the script as the non-profit’s technology approached AGI and profits neared, mobilizing Defendants to turn OpenAI, Inc. into their personal piggy bank and OpenAI into a moneymaking bonanza, worth billions,” Musk’s complaint said.

Where Musk saw OpenAI as his chance to fund a meaningful rival to stop Google from controlling the most powerful AI, Altman and others “wished to launch a competitor to Google” and allegedly deceived Musk to do it. According to Musk:

The idea Altman sold Musk was that a non-profit, funded and backed by Musk, would attract world-class scientists, conduct leading AI research and development, and, as a meaningful counterweight to Google’s DeepMind in the race for Artificial General Intelligence (“AGI”), decentralize its technology by making it open source. Altman assured Musk that the non-profit structure guaranteed neutrality and a focus on safety and openness for the benefit of humanity, not shareholder value. But as it turns out, this was all hot-air philanthropy—the hook for Altman’s long con.

Without Musk’s involvement and funding during OpenAI’s “first five critical years,” Musk’s complaint said, “it is fair to say” that “there would have been no OpenAI.” And when Altman and others repeatedly approached Musk with plans to shift OpenAI to a for-profit model, Musk held strong to his morals, conditioning his ongoing contributions on OpenAI remaining a nonprofit and its tech largely remaining open source.

“Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAI as a nonprofit,” Musk told Altman in 2018 when Altman tried to “recast the nonprofit as a moneymaking endeavor to bring in shareholders, sell equity, and raise capital.”

“I will no longer fund OpenAI until you have made a firm commitment to stay, or I’m just being a fool who is essentially providing free funding to a startup,” Musk said at the time. “Discussions are over.”

But discussions weren’t over. And now Musk seemingly does feel like a fool after OpenAI exclusively licensed GPT-4 and all “pre-AGI” technology to Microsoft in 2023, while putting up paywalls and “failing to publicly disclose the non-profit’s research and development, including details on GPT-4, GPT-4T, and GPT-4o’s architecture, hardware, training method, and training computation.” This excluded the public “from open usage of GPT-4 and related technology to advance Defendants and Microsoft’s own commercial interests,” Musk alleged.

Now Musk has revived his suit against OpenAI, asking the court to award maximum damages for OpenAI’s alleged fraud, contract breaches, false advertising, acts viewed as unfair to competition, and other violations.

He has also asked the court to determine a very technical question: whether OpenAI’s most recent models should be considered AGI and therefore Microsoft’s license voided. That’s the only way to ensure that a private corporation isn’t controlling OpenAI’s AGI models, which Musk repeatedly conditioned his financial contributions upon preventing.

“Musk contributed considerable money and resources to launch and sustain OpenAI, Inc., which was done on the condition that the endeavor would be and remain a non-profit devoted to openly sharing its technology with the public and avoid concentrating its power in the hands of the few,” Musk’s complaint said. “Defendants knowingly and repeatedly accepted Musk’s contributions in order to develop AGI, with no intention of honoring those conditions once AGI was in reach. Case in point: GPT-4, GPT-4T, and GPT-4o are all closed source and shrouded in secrecy, while Defendants actively work to transform the non-profit into a thoroughly commercial business.”

Musk wants Microsoft’s GPT-4 license voided

Musk also asked the court to null and void OpenAI’s exclusive license to Microsoft, or else determine “whether GPT-4, GPT-4T, GPT-4o, and other OpenAI next generation large language models constitute AGI and are thus excluded from Microsoft’s license.”

It’s clear that Musk considers these models to be AGI, and he’s alleged that Altman’s current control of OpenAI’s Board—after firing dissidents in 2023 whom Musk claimed tried to get Altman ousted for prioritizing profits over AI safety—gives Altman the power to obscure when OpenAI’s models constitute AGI.

Elon Musk sues OpenAI, Sam Altman for making a “fool” out of him Read More »

x-is-training-grok-ai-on-your-data—here’s-how-to-stop-it

X is training Grok AI on your data—here’s how to stop it

AI, chatbot, elon musk, grok, llm, privacy, Tech, Twitter, X, x.AI / /

Grok Your Privacy Options —

Some users were outraged to learn this was opt-out, not opt-in.

–

An AI-generated image released by xAI during the launch of Grok

Enlarge / An AI-generated image released by xAI during the open-weights launch of Grok-1.

Elon Musk-led social media platform X is training Grok, its AI chatbot, on users’ data, and that’s opt-out, not opt-in. If you’re an X user, that means Grok is already being trained on your posts if you haven’t explicitly told it not to.

Over the past day or so, users of the platform noticed the checkbox to opt out of this data usage in X’s privacy settings. The discovery was accompanied by outrage that user data was being used this way to begin with.

The social media posts about this sometimes seem to suggest that Grok has only just begun training on X users’ data, but users actually don’t know for sure when it started happening.

Earlier today, X’s Safety account tweeted, “All X users have the ability to control whether their public posts can be used to train Grok, the AI search assistant.” But it didn’t clarify either when the option became available or when the data collection began.

You cannot currently disable it in the mobile apps, but you can on mobile web, and X says the option is coming to the apps soon.

On the privacy settings page, X says:

To continuously improve your experience, we may utilize your X posts as well as your user interactions, inputs, and results with Grok for training and fine-tuning purposes. This also means that your interactions, inputs, and results may also be shared with our service provider xAI for these purposes.

X’s privacy policy has allowed for this since at least September 2023.

It’s increasingly common for user data to be used this way; for example, Meta has done the same with its users’ content, and there was an outcry when Adobe updated its terms of use to allow for this kind of thing. (Adobe quickly backtracked and promised to “never” train generative AI on creators’ content.)

How to opt out

  • To stop Grok from training on your X content, first go to “Settings and privacy” from the “More” menu in the navigation panel…

    Samuel Axon

  • Then click or tap “Privacy and safety”…

    Samuel Axon

  • Then “Grok”…

    Samuel Axon

  • And finally, uncheck the box.

    Samuel Axon

You can’t opt out within the iOS or Android apps yet, but you can do so in a few quick steps on either mobile or desktop web. To do so:

  • Click or tap “More” in the nav panel
  • Click or tap “Settings and privacy”
  • Click or tap “Privacy and safety”
  • Scroll down and click or tap “Grok” under “Data sharing and personalization”
  • Uncheck the box “Allow your posts as well as your interactions, inputs, and results with Grok to be used for training and fine-tuning,” which is checked by default.

Alternatively, you can follow this link directly to the settings page and uncheck the box with just one more click. If you’d like, you can also delete your conversation history with Grok here, provided you’ve actually used the chatbot before.

X is training Grok AI on your data—here’s how to stop it Read More »

no-judge-with-tesla-stock-should-handle-elon-musk-cases,-watchdog-argues

No judge with Tesla stock should handle Elon Musk cases, watchdog argues

elon musk, media matter for America, online advertising, Policy, Tesla, Tesla stock, Twitter, twitter ad boycott, X, x ad boycott, x corp / /
No judge with Tesla stock should handle Elon Musk cases, watchdog argues

Elon Musk’s fight against Media Matters for America (MMFA)—a watchdog organization that he largely blames for an ad boycott that tanked Twitter/X’s revenue—has raised an interesting question about whether any judge owning Tesla stock might reasonably be considered biased when weighing any lawsuit centered on the tech billionaire.

In a court filing Monday, MMFA lawyers argued that “undisputed facts—including statements from Musk and Tesla—lay bare the interest Tesla shareholders have in this case.” According to the watchdog, any outcome in the litigation will likely impact Tesla’s finances, and that’s a problem because there’s a possibility that the judge in the case, Reed O’Connor, owns Tesla stock.

“X cannot dispute the public association between Musk—his persona, business practices, and public remarks—and the Tesla brand,” MMFA argued. “That association would lead a reasonable observer to ‘harbor doubts’ about whether a judge with a financial interest in Musk could impartially adjudicate this case.”

It’s still unclear if Judge O’Connor actually owns Tesla stock. But after MMFA’s legal team uncovered disclosures showing that he did as of last year, they argued that fact can only be clarified if the court views Tesla as a party with a “financial interest in the outcome of the case” under Texas law—“no matter how small.”

To make those facts clear, MMFA is now arguing that X must be ordered to add Tesla as an interested person in the litigation, which a source familiar with the matter told Ars, would most likely lead to a recusal if O’Connor indeed still owned Tesla stock.

“At most, requiring X to disclose Tesla would suggest that judges owning stock in Tesla—the only publicly traded Musk entity—should recuse from future cases in which Musk himself is demonstrably central to the dispute,” MMFA argued.

Ars could not immediately reach X Corp’s lawyer for comment.

However, in X’s court filing opposing the motion to add Tesla as an interested person, X insisted that “Tesla is not a party to this case and has no interest in the subject matter of the litigation, as the business relationships at issue concern only X Corp.’s contracts with X’s advertisers.”

Calling MMFA’s motion “meritless,” X accused MMFA of strategizing to get Judge O’Connor disqualified in order to go “forum shopping” after MMFA received “adverse rulings” on motions to stay discovery and dismiss the case.

As to the question of whether any judge owning Tesla stock might be considered impartial in weighing Musk-centric cases, X argued that Judge O’Connor was just as duty-bound to reject an improper motion for recusal, should MMFA go that route, as he was to accept a proper motion.

“Courts are ‘reluctant to fashion a rule requiring judges to recuse themselves from all cases that might remotely affect nonparty companies in which they own stock,'” X argued.

Recently, judges have recused themselves from cases involving Musk without explaining why. In November, a prior judge in the very same Media Matters’ suit mysteriously recused himself, with The Hill reporting that it was likely that the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” for reasons like a financial interest or personal bias. Then in June, another judge ruled he was disqualified to rule on a severance lawsuit raised by former Twitter executives without giving “a specific reason,” Bloomberg Law reported.

Should another recusal come in the MMFA lawsuit, it would be a rare example of a judge clearly disclosing a financial interest in a Musk case.

“The straightforward question is whether Musk’s statements and behavior relevant to this case affect Tesla’s stock price, not whether they are the only factor that affects it,” MMFA argued. ” At the very least, there is a serious question about whether Musk’s highly unusual management practices mean Tesla must be disclosed as an interested party.”

Parties expect a ruling on MMFA’s motion in the coming weeks.

No judge with Tesla stock should handle Elon Musk cases, watchdog argues Read More »

elon-musk-claims-he-is-training-“the-world’s-most-powerful-ai-by-every-metric”

Elon Musk claims he is training “the world’s most powerful AI by every metric”

AI, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, elon musk, GPUs, grok, H100, large language models, Memphis, Memphis supercluster, NVIDIA, tennessee, Tesla, TVA, WREG, xAI / /

the biggest, most powerful —

One snag: xAI might not have the electrical power contracts to do it.

–

Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla Inc., during a fireside discussion on artificial intelligence risks with Rishi Sunak, UK prime minister, in London, UK, on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023.

Enlarge / Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla Inc., during a fireside discussion on artificial intelligence risks with Rishi Sunak, UK prime minister, in London, UK, on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023.

On Monday, Elon Musk announced the start of training for what he calls “the world’s most powerful AI training cluster” at xAI’s new supercomputer facility in Memphis, Tennessee. The billionaire entrepreneur and CEO of multiple tech companies took to X (formerly Twitter) to share that the so-called “Memphis Supercluster” began operations at approximately 4: 20 am local time that day.

Musk’s xAI team, in collaboration with X and Nvidia, launched the supercomputer cluster featuring 100,000 liquid-cooled H100 GPUs on a single RDMA fabric. This setup, according to Musk, gives xAI “a significant advantage in training the world’s most powerful AI by every metric by December this year.”

Given issues with xAI’s Grok chatbot throughout the year, skeptics would be justified in questioning whether those claims will match reality, especially given Musk’s tendency for grandiose, off-the-cuff remarks on the social media platform he runs.

Power issues

According to a report by News Channel 3 WREG Memphis, the startup of the massive AI training facility marks a milestone for the city. WREG reports that xAI’s investment represents the largest capital investment by a new company in Memphis’s history. However, the project has raised questions among local residents and officials about its impact on the area’s power grid and infrastructure.

WREG reports that Doug McGowen, president of Memphis Light, Gas and Water (MLGW), previously stated that xAI could consume up to 150 megawatts of power at peak times. This substantial power requirement has prompted discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) regarding the project’s electricity demands and connection to the power system.

The TVA told the local news station, “TVA does not have a contract in place with xAI. We are working with xAI and our partners at MLGW on the details of the proposal and electricity demand needs.”

The local news outlet confirms that MLGW has stated that xAI moved into an existing building with already existing utility services, but the full extent of the company’s power usage and its potential effects on local utilities remain unclear. To address community concerns, WREG reports that MLGW plans to host public forums in the coming days to provide more information about the project and its implications for the city.

For now, Tom’s Hardware reports that Musk is side-stepping power issues by installing a fleet of 14 VoltaGrid natural gas generators that provide supplementary power to the Memphis computer cluster while his company works out an agreement with the local power utility.

As training at the Memphis Supercluster gets underway, all eyes are on xAI and Musk’s ambitious goal of developing the world’s most powerful AI by the end of the year (by which metric, we are uncertain), given the competitive landscape in AI at the moment between OpenAI/Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Anthropic, and Google. If such an AI model emerges from xAI, we’ll be ready to write about it.

This article was updated on July 24, 2024 at 1: 11 pm to mention Musk installing natural gas generators onsite in Memphis.

Elon Musk claims he is training “the world’s most powerful AI by every metric” Read More »

elon-musk’s-x-tests-letting-users-request-community-notes-on-bad-posts

Elon Musk’s X tests letting users request Community Notes on bad posts

AI, Artificial Intelligence, chatbot, community notes, disinformation, elon musk, fact checking, grok, misinformation, online news, Policy, Twitter, X / /
Elon Musk’s X tests letting users request Community Notes on bad posts

Continuing to evolve the fact-checking service that launched as Twitter’s Birdwatch, X has announced that Community Notes can now be requested to clarify problematic posts spreading on Elon Musk’s platform.

X’s Community Notes account confirmed late Thursday that, due to “popular demand,” X had launched a pilot test on the web-based version of the platform. The test is active now and the same functionality will be “coming soon” to Android and iOS, the Community Notes account said.

Through the current web-based pilot, if you’re an eligible user, you can click on the “•••” menu on any X post on the web and request fact-checking from one of Community Notes’ top contributors, X explained. If X receives five or more requests within 24 hours of the post going live, a Community Note will be added.

Only X users with verified phone numbers will be eligible to request Community Notes, X said, and to start, users will be limited to five requests a day.

“The limit may increase if requests successfully result in helpful notes, or may decrease if requests are on posts that people don’t agree need a note,” X’s website said. “This helps prevent spam and keep note writers focused on posts that could use helpful notes.”

Once X receives five or more requests for a Community Note within a single day, top contributors with diverse views will be alerted to respond. On X, top contributors are constantly changing, as their notes are voted as either helpful or not. If at least 4 percent of their notes are rated “helpful,” X explained on its site, and the impact of their notes meets X standards, they can be eligible to receive alerts.

“A contributor’s Top Writer status can always change as their notes are rated by others,” X’s website said.

Ultimately, X considers notes helpful if they “contain accurate, high-quality information” and “help inform people’s understanding of the subject matter in posts,” X said on another part of its site. To gauge the former, X said that the platform partners with “professional reviewers” from the Associated Press and Reuters. X also continually monitors whether notes marked helpful by top writers match what general X users marked as helpful.

“We don’t expect all notes to be perceived as helpful by all people all the time,” X’s website said. “Instead, the goal is to ensure that on average notes that earn the status of Helpful are likely to be seen as helpful by a wide range of people from different points of view, and not only be seen as helpful by people from one viewpoint.”

X will also be allowing half of the top contributors to request notes during the pilot phase, which X said will help the platform evaluate “whether it is beneficial for Community Notes contributors to have both the ability to write notes and request notes.”

According to X, the criteria for requesting a note have intentionally been designed to be simple during the pilot stage, but X expects “these criteria to evolve, with the goal that requests are frequently found valuable to contributors, and not noisy.”

It’s hard to tell from the outside looking in how helpful Community Notes are to X users. The most recent Community Notes survey data that X points to is from 2022 when the platform was still called Twitter and the fact-checking service was still called Birdwatch.

That data showed that “on average,” users were “20–40 percent less likely to agree with the substance of a potentially misleading Tweet than someone who sees the Tweet alone.” And based on Twitter’s “internal data” at that time, the platform also estimated that “people on Twitter who see notes are, on average, 15–35 percent less likely to Like or Retweet a Tweet than someone who sees the Tweet alone.”

Elon Musk’s X tests letting users request Community Notes on bad posts Read More »

elon-musk’s-x-may-succeed-in-blocking-calif.-content-moderation-law-on-appeal

Elon Musk’s X may succeed in blocking Calif. content moderation law on appeal

California, content moderation, elon musk, First Amendment, free speech rights, Online speech, Policy, Twitter, X, x corp / /

Judgment call —

Elon Musk’s X previously failed to block the law on First Amendment grounds.

–

Elon Musk’s X may succeed in blocking Calif. content moderation law on appeal

Elon Musk’s fight defending X’s content moderation decisions isn’t just with hate speech researchers and advertisers. He has also long been battling regulators, and this week, he seemed positioned to secure a potentially big win in California, where he’s hoping to permanently block a law that he claims unconstitutionally forces his platform to justify its judgment calls.

At a hearing Wednesday, three judges in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals seemed inclined to agree with Musk that a California law requiring disclosures from social media companies that clearly explain their content moderation choices likely violates the First Amendment.

Passed in 2022, AB-587 forces platforms like X to submit a “terms of service report” detailing how they moderate several categories of controversial content. Those categories include hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference, which X’s lawyer, Joel Kurtzberg, told judges yesterday “are the most controversial categories of so-called awful but lawful speech.”

The law would seemingly require more transparency than ever from X, making it easy for users to track exactly how much controversial content X flags and removes—and perhaps most notably for advertisers, how many users viewed concerning content.

To block the law, X sued in 2023, arguing that California was trying to dictate its terms of service and force the company to make statements on content moderation that could generate backlash. X worried that the law “impermissibly” interfered with both “the constitutionally protected editorial judgments” of social media companies, as well as impacted users’ speech by requiring companies “to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful.”

Any companies found to be non-compliant could face stiff fines of up to $15,000 per violation per day, which X considered “draconian.” But last year, a lower court declined to block the law, prompting X to appeal, and yesterday, the appeals court seemed more sympathetic to X’s case.

At the hearing, Kurtzberg told judges that the law was “deeply threatening to the well-established First Amendment interests” of an “extraordinary diversity of” people, which is why X’s complaint was supported by briefs from reporters, freedom of the press advocates, First Amendment scholars, “conservative entities,” and people across the political spectrum.

All share “a deep concern about a statute that, on its face, is aimed at pressuring social media companies to change their content moderation policies, so as to carry less or even no expression that’s viewed by the state as injurious to its people,” Kurtzberg told judges.

When the court pointed out that seemingly the law simply required X to abide by content moderation policies for each category defined in its own terms of service—and did not compel X to adopt any policy or position that it did not choose—Kurtzberg pushed back.

“They don’t mandate us to define the categories in a specific way, but they mandate us to take a position on what the legislature makes clear are the most controversial categories to moderate and define,” Kurtzberg said. “We are entitled to respond to the statute by saying we don’t define hate speech or racism. But the report also asks about policies that are supposedly, quote, ‘intended’ to address those categories, which is a judgment call.”

“This is very helpful,” Judge Anthony Johnstone responded. “Even if you don’t yourself define those categories in the terms of service, you read the law as requiring you to opine or discuss those categories, even if they’re not part of your own terms,” and “you are required to tell California essentially your views on hate speech, extremism, harassment, foreign political interference, how you define them or don’t define them, and what you choose to do about them?”

“That is correct,” Kurtzberg responded, noting that X considered those categories the most “fraught” and “difficult to define.”

Elon Musk’s X may succeed in blocking Calif. content moderation law on appeal Read More »

elon-musk-says-spacex-and-x-will-relocate-their-headquarters-to-texas

Elon Musk says SpaceX and X will relocate their headquarters to Texas

California, elon musk, Gavin Newsom, Science, Space, spacex, texas, X / /

Home base at Starbase —

The billionaire blamed a California gender identity law for moving SpaceX and X headquarters.

–

A pedestrian walks past a flown Falcon 9 booster at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California, on Tuesday, the same day Elon Musk said he will relocate the headquarters to Texas.

Enlarge / A pedestrian walks past a flown Falcon 9 booster at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California, on Tuesday, the same day Elon Musk said he will relocate the headquarters to Texas.

Elon Musk said Tuesday that he will move the headquarters of SpaceX and his social media company X from California to Texas in response to a new gender identity law signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Musk’s announcement, made via a post on X, follows his decision in 2021 to move the headquarters of the electric car company Tesla from Palo Alto, California, to Austin, Texas, in the wake of coronavirus lockdowns in the Bay Area the year before. Now, two of Musk’s other major holdings are making symbolic moves out of California: SpaceX to the company’s Starbase launch facility near Brownsville, Texas, and X to Austin.

The new gender identity law, signed by Governor Newsom, a Democrat, on Monday, bars school districts in California from requiring teachers to disclose a change in a student’s gender identification or sexual orientation to their parents without the child’s permission. Musk wrote on X that the law was the “final straw” prompting the relocation to Texas, where the billionaire executive and his companies could take advantage of lower taxes and light-touch regulations.

Earlier this year, SpaceX transferred its incorporation from Delaware to Texas after a Delaware judge invalidated his pay package at Tesla.

“Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas,” Musk wrote Tuesday on X.

The first-in-the-nation law in California is a flashpoint in the struggle between conservative school boards concerned about parental rights and proponents for the privacy rights of LGBTQ people.

“I did make it clear to Governor Newsom about a year ago that laws of this nature would force families and companies to leave California to protect their children,” wrote Musk, who on Saturday endorsed former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in this year’s presidential election.

In a statement, Newsom’s office said the law “does not allow a student’s name or gender identity to be changed on an official school record without parental consent” and “does not take away or undermine parents’ rights.”

What does this mean for SpaceX?

Musk’s comments on X didn’t mention details about the implications of his companies’ moves to Texas. However, while Tesla’s corporate headquarters relocated to Texas in 2021, the company still produces cars in California and announced a new engineering hub in Palo Alto last year. The situation with SpaceX is likely to be similar.

Since Musk bought Twitter in 2022, he renamed it X, rewrote the network’s policies on content moderation, and laid off most of the company’s staff, reducing its workforce to around 1,500 employees. With vast manufacturing capacities, SpaceX currently has more than 13,000 employees, so a relocation for Musk’s space company would affect more people and potentially be more disruptive than one at X.

SpaceX’s current headquarters in Hawthorne, California, serves as a factory, engineering design center, and mission control for the company’s rockets and spacecraft. Relocating these facilities wouldn’t be easy, but SpaceX may not need to.

Elon Musk says SpaceX and X will relocate their headquarters to Texas Read More »

spacex’s-unmatched-streak-of-perfection-with-the-falcon-9-rocket-is-over

SpaceX’s unmatched streak of perfection with the Falcon 9 rocket is over

Commercial space, elon musk, falcon 9, launch, Science, Space, spacex, starlink, Vandenberg space force base / /
Numerous pieces of ice fell off the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket during its climb into orbit from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.

Enlarge / Numerous pieces of ice fell off the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket during its climb into orbit from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.

SpaceX

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket suffered an upper stage engine failure and deployed a batch of Starlink Internet satellites into a perilously low orbit after launch from California Thursday night, the first blemish on the workhorse launcher’s record in more than 300 missions since 2016.

Elon Musk, SpaceX’s founder and CEO, posted on X that the rocket’s upper stage engine failed when it attempted to reignite nearly an hour after the Falcon 9 lifted off from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, at 7: 35 pm PDT (02: 35 UTC).

Frosty evidence

After departing Vandenberg to begin SpaceX’s Starlink 9-3 mission, the rocket’s reusable first stage booster propelled the Starlink satellites into the upper atmosphere, then returned to Earth for an on-target landing on a recovery ship parked in the Pacific Ocean. A single Merlin Vacuum engine on the rocket’s second stage fired for about six minutes to reach a preliminary orbit.

A few minutes after liftoff of SpaceX’s Starlink 9-3 mission, veteran observers of SpaceX launches noticed an unusual build-up of ice around the top of the Merlin Vacuum engine, which consumes a propellant mixture of super-chilled kerosene and cryogenic liquid oxygen. The liquid oxygen is stored at a temperature of several hundred degrees below zero.

Numerous chunks of ice fell away from the rocket as the upper stage engine powered into orbit, but the Merlin Vacuum, or M-Vac, engine appeared to complete its first burn as planned. A leak in the oxidizer system or a problem with insulation could lead to ice accumulation, although the exact cause, and its possible link to the engine malfunction later in flight, will be the focus of SpaceX’s investigation into the failure.

A second burn with the upper stage engine was supposed to raise the perigee, or low point, of the rocket’s orbit well above the atmosphere before releasing 20 Starlink satellites to continue climbing to their operational altitude with their own propulsion.

“Upper stage restart to raise perigee resulted in an engine RUD for reasons currently unknown,” Musk wrote in an update two hours after the launch. RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) is a term of art in rocketry that usually signifies a catastrophic or explosive failure.

“Team is reviewing data tonight to understand root cause,” Musk continued. “Starlink satellites were deployed, but the perigee may be too low for them to raise orbit. Will know more in a few hours.”

Telemetry from the Falcon 9 rocket indicated it released the Starlink satellites into an orbit with a perigee just 86 miles (138 kilometers) above Earth, roughly 100 miles (150 kilometers) lower than expected, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist and trusted tracker of spaceflight activity. Detailed orbital data from the US Space Force was not immediately available.

Ripple effects

While ground controllers scramble to salvage the 20 Starlink satellites, SpaceX engineers began probing what went wrong with the second stage’s M-Vac engine. For SpaceX and its customers, the investigation into the rocket malfunction is likely the more pressing matter.

SpaceX could absorb the loss of 20 Starlink satellites relatively easily. The company’s satellite assembly line can produce 20 Starlink spacecraft in a few days. But the Falcon 9 rocket’s dependability and high flight rate have made it a workhorse for NASA, the US military, and the wider space industry. An investigation will probably delay several upcoming SpaceX flights.

The first in-flight failure for SpaceX’s Falcon rocket family since June 2015, a streak of 344 consecutive successful launches until tonight.

A lot of unusual ice was observed on the Falcon 9’s upper stage during its first burn tonight, some of it falling into the engine plume. https://t.co/1vc3P9EZjj pic.twitter.com/fHO73MYLms

— Stephen Clark (@StephenClark1) July 12, 2024

Depending on the cause of the problem and what SpaceX must do to fix it, it’s possible the company can recover from the upper stage failure and resume launching Starlink satellites soon. Most of SpaceX’s launches aren’t for external customers, but deploy satellites for the company’s own Starlink network. This gives SpaceX a unique flexibility to quickly return to flight with the Falcon 9 without needing to satisfy customer concerns.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which licenses all commercial space launches in the United States, will require SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation before resuming Falcon 9 flights.

“The FAA will be involved in every step of the investigation process and must approve SpaceX’s final report, including any corrective actions,” an FAA spokesperson said. “A return to flight is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety.”

Two crew missions are supposed to launch on SpaceX’s human-rated Falcon 9 rocket in the next six weeks, but those launch dates are now in doubt.

The all-private Polaris Dawn mission, commanded by billionaire Jared Isaacman, is scheduled to launch on a Falcon 9 rocket on July 31 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Isaacman and three commercial astronaut crewmates will spend five days in orbit on a mission that will include the first commercial spacewalk outside their Crew Dragon capsule, using new pressure suits designed and built by SpaceX.

NASA’s next crew mission with SpaceX is slated to launch from Florida aboard a Falcon 9 rocket around August 19. This team of four astronauts will replace a crew of four who have been on the International Space Station since March.

Some customers, especially NASA’s commercial crew program, will likely want to see the results of an in-depth inquiry and require SpaceX to string together a series of successful Falcon 9 flights with Starlink satellites before clearing their own missions for launch. SpaceX has already launched 70 flights with its Falcon family of rockets since January 1, an average cadence of one launch every 2.7 days, more than the combined number of orbital launches by all other nations this year.

With this rapid-fire launch cadence, SpaceX could quickly demonstrate the fitness of any fixes engineers recommend to resolve the problem that caused Thursday night’s failure. But investigations into rocket failures often take weeks or months. It was too soon, early on Friday, to know the true impact of the upper stage malfunction on SpaceX’s launch schedule.

SpaceX’s unmatched streak of perfection with the Falcon 9 rocket is over Read More »

elon-musk-denies-tweets-misled-twitter-investors-ahead-of-purchase

Elon Musk denies tweets misled Twitter investors ahead of purchase

elon musk, fraud, Policy, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Twitter, x corp / /
Elon Musk denies tweets misled Twitter investors ahead of purchase

Just before the Fourth of July holiday, Elon Musk moved to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that he intentionally misled Twitter investors in 2022 by failing to disclose his growing stake in Twitter while tweeting about potentially starting his own social network in the weeks ahead of announcing his plan to buy Twitter.

Allegedly, Musk devised this fraudulent scheme to reduce the Twitter purchase price by $200 million, a proposed class action filed by an Oklahoma Firefighters pension fund on behalf of all Twitter investors allegedly harmed claimed. But in another court filing this week, Musk insisted that “all indications”—including those referenced in the firefighters’ complaint—”point to mistake,” not fraud.

According to Musk, evidence showed that he simply misunderstood the Securities Exchange Act when he delayed filing a Rule 13 disclosure of his nearly 10 percent ownership stake in Twitter in March 2022. Musk argued that he believed he was required to disclose this stake at the end of the year, rather than within 10 days after the month in which he amassed a 5 percent stake. He said that previously he’d only filed Rule 13 disclosures as the owner of a company—not as someone suddenly acquiring 5 percent stake.

Musk claimed that as soon as his understanding of the law was corrected—on April 1, when he’d already missed the deadline by about seven days—he promptly stopped trading and filed the disclosure on the next trading day.

“Such prompt and corrective disclosure—within seven trading days of the purported deadline—is not the stuff of a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the market,” Musk’s court filing said.

As Musk sees it, the firefighters’ suit “makes no sense” because it basically alleged that Musk always intended to disclose the supposedly fraudulent scheme, which in the context of his extraordinary wealth, barely saved him any meaningful amount of money when purchasing Twitter.

The idea that Musk “engaged in intentional securities fraud in order to save $200 million is illogical in light of Musk’s eventual $44 billion purchase of Twitter,” Musk’s court filing said. “It defies logic that Musk would commit fraud to save less than 0.5 percent of Twitter’s total purchase price, and 0.1 percent of his net worth, all while knowing that there would be ‘an inevitable day of reckoning’ when he would disclose the truth—which was always his intent.”

It’s much more likely, Musk argued, that “Musk’s acknowledgement of his tardiness is that he was expressly acknowledging a mistake, not publicly conceding a purportedly days-old fraudulent scheme.”

Arguing that all firefighters showed was “enough to adequately plead a material omission and misstatement”—which he said would not be an actionable claim under the Securities Exchange Act—Musk has asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed with prejudice. At most, Musk is guilty of neglect, his court filing said, not deception. Allegedly Musk never “had any intention of avoiding reporting requirements,” his court filing said.

The firefighters pension fund has until August 12 to defend its claims and keep the suit alive, Musk’s court filing noted. In their complaint, the fighterfighteres had asked the court to award damages covering losses, plus interest, for all Twitter shareholders determined to be “cheated out of the true value of their securities” by Musk’s alleged scheme.

Ars could not immediately reach lawyers for Musk or the firefighters pension fund for comment.

Elon Musk denies tweets misled Twitter investors ahead of purchase Read More »

tesla-says-model-3-that-burst-into-flames-in-fatal-tree-crash-wasn’t-defective

Tesla says Model 3 that burst into flames in fatal tree crash wasn’t defective

autonomous cars, Autonomous Driving, autopilot, elon musk, Policy, self-driving, Tesla, tesla model 3 / /
Tesla says Model 3 that burst into flames in fatal tree crash wasn’t defective

Tesla has denied that “any defect in the Autopilot system caused or contributed” to the 2022 death of a Tesla employee, Hans von Ohain, whose Tesla Model 3 burst into flames after the car suddenly veered off a road and crashed into a tree.

“Von Ohain fought to regain control of the vehicle, but, to his surprise and horror, his efforts were prevented by the vehicle’s Autopilot features, leaving him helpless and unable to steer back on course,” a wrongful death lawsuit filed in May by von Ohain’s wife, Nora Bass, alleged.

In Tesla’s response to the lawsuit filed Thursday, the carmaker also denied that the 2021 vehicle had any defects, contradicting Bass’ claims that Tesla knew that the car should have been recalled but chose to “prioritize profits over consumer safety.”

As detailed in her complaint, initially filed in a Colorado state court, Bass believes the Tesla Model 3 was defective in that it “did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform” and “the benefits of the vehicle’s design did not outweigh the risks.”

Instead of acknowledging alleged defects and exploring alternative designs, Tesla marketed the car as being engineered “to be the safest” car “built to date,” Bass’ complaint said.

Von Ohain was particularly susceptible to this marketing, Bass has said, because he considered Tesla CEO Elon Musk to be a “brilliant man,” The Washington Post reported. “We knew the technology had to learn, and we were willing to be part of that,” Bass said, but the couple didn’t realize how allegedly dangerous it could be to help train “futuristic technology,” The Post reported.

In Tesla’s response, the carmaker defended its marketing of the Tesla Model 3, denying that the company “engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices.”

“The product in question was not defective or unreasonably dangerous,” Tesla’s filing said.

Insisting in its response that the vehicle was safe when it was sold, Tesla again disputed Bass’ complaint, which claimed that “at no time after the purchase of the 2021 Tesla Model 3 did any person alter, modify, or change any aspect or component of the vehicle’s design or manufacture.” Contradicting this, Tesla suggested that the car “may not have been in the same condition at the time of the crash as it was at the time when it left Tesla’s custody.”

The Washington Post broke the story about von Ohain’s fatal crash, reporting that it may be “the first documented fatality linked to the most advanced driver assistance technology offered” by Tesla. In response to Tesla’s filing, Bass’ attorney, Jonathan Michaels, told The Post that his team is “committed to advocating fiercely for the von Ohain family, ensuring they receive the justice they deserve.”

Michaels told The Post that perhaps as significant as alleged autonomous driving flaws, the Tesla Model 3 was also allegedly defective “because of the intensity of the fire that ensued after von Ohain hit the tree, which ultimately caused his death.” According to the Colorado police officer looking into the crash, Robert Madden, the vehicle fire was among “the most intense” he’d ever investigated, The Post reported.

Lawyers for Bass and Tesla did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

Tesla says Model 3 that burst into flames in fatal tree crash wasn’t defective Read More »

elon-musk-rushes-to-debut-x-payments-as-tech-issues-hamper-creator-payouts

Elon Musk rushes to debut X payments as tech issues hamper creator payouts

elon musk, everything app, Policy, Twitter, X, x corp, x payments / /
Elon Musk rushes to debut X payments as tech issues hamper creator payouts

Elon Musk is still frantically pushing to launch X payment services in the US by the end of 2024, Bloomberg reported Tuesday.

Launching payment services is arguably one of the reasons why Musk paid so much to acquire Twitter in 2022. His rebranding of the social platform into X revives a former dream he had as a PayPal co-founder who fought and failed to name the now-ubiquitous payments app X. Musk has told X staff that transforming the company into a payments provider would be critical to achieving his goal of turning X into a so-called everything app “within three to five years.”

Late last year, Musk said it would “blow” his “mind” if X didn’t roll out payments by the end of 2024, so Bloomberg’s report likely comes as no big surprise to Musk’s biggest fans who believe in his vision. At that time, Musk said he wanted X users’ “entire financial lives” on the platform before 2024 ended, and a Bloomberg review of “more than 350 pages of documents and emails related to money transmitter licenses that X Payments submitted in 11 states” shows approximately how close he is to making that dream a reality on his platform.

X Payments, a subsidiary of X, reports that X already has money transmitter licenses in 28 states, but X wants to secure licenses in all states before 2024 winds down, Bloomberg reported.

Bloomberg’s review found that X has a multiyear plan to gradually introduce payment features across the US—including “Venmo-like” features to send and receive money, as well as make purchases online—but hopes to begin that process this year. Payment providers like Stripe and Adyen have already partnered with X to process its transactions, Bloomberg reported, and X has told regulators that it “anticipated” that its payments system would also rely on those partnerships.

Musk initially had hoped to launch payments globally in 2024, but regulatory pressures forced him to tamp down those ambitions, Bloomberg reported. States like Massachusetts, for example, required X to resubmit its application only after more than half of US states had issued licenses, Bloomberg found.

Ultimately, Musk wants X to become the largest financial institution in the world. Bloomberg reported that he plans to do this by giving users a convenient “digital dashboard” through X “that will serve as a centralized hub for all payments activity” online. To make sure that users keep their money stashed on the platform, Musk plans to offer “extremely high yield” savings accounts that X Payments’ chief information security officer, Chris Stanley, teased in April would basically guarantee that funds are rarely withdrawn from X.

“The end goal is if you ever have any incentive to take money out of our system, then we have failed,” Stanley posted on X.

Stanley compared X payments to Venmo and Apple Pay and said X’s plan for its payment feature was to “evolve” so that X users “can gain interest, buy products,” and “eventually use it to buy things in stores.”

Bloomberg confirmed that X does not plan to charge users any fees to send or receive payments, although Musk has told regulators that offering payments will “boost” X’s business by increasing X users’ “participation and engagement.” Analysts told Bloomberg that X could also profit off payments by charging merchants fees or by “offering banking services, such as checking accounts and debit cards.”

Musk has told X staff that he plans to offer checking accounts, debit cards, and even loans through X, saying that “if you address all things that you want from a finance standpoint, then we will be the people’s financial institution.”

X CEO Linda Yaccarino has been among the biggest cheerleaders for Musk’s plan to turn X into a bank, writing in a blog last year, “We want money on X to flow as freely as information and conversation.”

Elon Musk rushes to debut X payments as tech issues hamper creator payouts Read More »