Category Archives: X

Elon Musk Says X Is Moving To Monthly Subscription Fees

X,

Elon Musk discussed his plans for Twitter, now called X, on Monday during a live-streamed conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Among other things, Musk said the social network is “moving to having a small monthly payment for use of the X system” in order to combat “vast armies of bots”, CNBC reported.

According to CNBC, Musk did not say how much a new plan would cost users of the social network, or what other features would or would not be included with payment at the lowest tier.

Variety reported Elon Musk may flip the switch to make X – the social network formerly known as twitter – an entirely subscription-based platform.

According to Variety, Musk has previously mulled the idea of putting Twitter entirely behind a paywall in internal conversations, according to industry news site Platformer. Musk, who is also the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has said X/Twitter’s ad sales have plunged 50% since he bought the company. “We’re still negative cash flow, due to ~50% drop in advertising revenue plus heavy debt load,” Musk posted on July 15.

Currently, X’s subscription program – formerly Twitter Blue, now called X Blue, under Musk’s rebranding effort – is priced starting at $8 per month, Variety reported. One of the chief perks of X Blue is getting verified check-mark status, although this summer the company added the ability for subscribers to hide the check-mark from public view.

TechCrunch reported that X owner Elon Musk floated the idea that the social network formerly known as Twitter may no longer be a free site. Musk said the company was “moving to a small monthly payment” for the use of the X system. He suggested that such a change would be necessary to deal with the problem of bots on the platform.

“It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots,” explained Musk. “Because a bot costs a fraction of a penny – call it a tenth of a penny – but even if it has to pay…a few dollars or something, the effective cost of bots is very high,” he said. Plus, every time a bot creator wanted to make another bot they would need another new payment method.

According to TechCrunch, Musk didn’t say what the new subscription payment would cost, but described it as a “small amount of money.”

Musk did not expand on his plan to charge for X or when such a change would come about. But since Musk took over the platform last year, the company has been pushing users to subscribe to its paid subscription product, X Premium (previously Twitter Blue). This $8 per month or $84 dollars per year subscription service offers a variety of features like the ability to edit posts, half the ad load, prioritized rankings in search and conversations, the ability to write longer posts, and more.

Personally, I think it is time for me to leave X/Twitter. Plenty of people have already left the platform, after letting their friends know what other social media sites they moved to. There is absolutely no way I am going to trust Elon Musk with my credit card numbers.

FTC Says Elon Musk May Have Jeopardized Data Privacy And Security

X, ,

Court filings have revealed new details about the FTC’s investigation into Elon Musk over his handling of privacy and security issues at X. In newly public court documents, the Department of Justice says Musk fostered a “chaotic environment” at Twitter, now known as X, that prevented officials from complying with their obligations to the FTC, Engadget reported.

According to Engadget, the FTC investigation stems from a 2022 settlement between FTC and Twitter over the company’s use of deceptive ad targeting under the leadership of Jack Dorsey. Prior to Musk’s takeover, the company paid a $150 million fine and signed on to an agreement to implement specific privacy and security measures. It was this additional data protection measures that apparently fell by the wayside once Musk took control, triggering new scrutiny from the regulator.

In March, the FTC began investigating the rushed rollout of Twitter Blue, which reportedly launched without the privacy and security review required under the FTC order, as well as Musk’s handling of the so-called “Twitter Files.”

CNN reported that Elon Musk should be forced to testify in an expansive US government probe of X, the company formerly known as Twitter, the US government said.

The government said mass layoffs and other decisions Musk made raised questions about X’s ability to comply with the law and to protect users’ privacy.

According to CNN, the US government’s attempt to compel Musk’s testimony is the latest turn in an investigation that predates Musk’s acquisition of X that has intensified due to Musk’s own actions, according to a court filing by the Justice Department on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission.

The court filing dated Monday cites depositions with multiple former X executives, including its former chief information security officer and former chief privacy officer, who testified that a barrage of layoffs and resignations following Musk’s $44 billion takeover may have hindered X from meeting its security obligations under a 2011 FTC consent agreement.

The Guardian reported that the US Department of Justice alleged in a legal filing on Tuesday that depositions from former employees at Twitter, now rebranded X, raised “serious questions” about whether the company was complying with an order imposed by the consumer and competition watchdog, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

“The information obtained revealed a chaotic environment at the company that raised serious questions about whether and how Musk and other leaders were ensuring X Corp’s compliance with the 2022 administrative order,” the filing said.

According to The Guardian, Twitter’s former director of security engineering, Andrew Sayler, testified that he had “ongoing questions about Elon’s commitment to the overall security and privacy of the organization” because he thought “the manner in which Elon was requesting us to grant access to third parties that had not undergone our regular vetting process … [had] some degree of disregard for the overall sensitivity and security at that level of access”.

In a further example from the filing, another employee said the Tesla CEO “insisted on launching the new Twitter Blue user verification services on an accelerated basis, despite staffing limitations.” Musk, according to the testimony, insisted that the service had to launch “right now” even though Twitter’s staffing was reduced so drastically that remaining employees were “struggling to keep up.”

Personally, I think that Elon Musk should have slowed down the changes he made on (then) Twitter (and later) X. I think this lawsuit could have been avoided if Elon Musk didn’t try to do a speed-run of scattered policies shortly after he purchased Twitter.

X Is Suing California Over Social Media Content Moderation Law

X, , ,

X, the social media company previously known as Twitter, is suing the state of California over a law that requires companies to disclose details about their content moderation practices, Engadget reported.

The law, known as AB 587, requires social media companies to publish information about their handling of hate speech, extremism, misinformation and other issues, as well as details about internal moderation processes.

According to Engadget, lawyers for X argue that the law is unconstitutional and will lead to censorship. It “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company wrote in the lawsuit. “The true intent of AB 587 is to pressure social media platforms to ‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic.”

ArsTechnica reported that Elon Musk’s X Corp. sued to block California’s content moderation law, AB 587. In its complaint, filed by a US district court in California, X Corp. is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction stopping California Attorney Robert Bonta from enforcing the law.

According to ArsTechnica, AB 587 passed in September 2022, requiring social media platforms to submit a “terms of service report” semi-annually to California’s attorney general, providing “a detailed description of content moderation practices used” and “information about whether, and if so how, the social media company defines and moderates” hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.” Under the law, social media platforms must also provide information and statistics on any content moderation actions taken in those categories.

The law stipulated that all platforms were required to start collecting data for their first terms of service report covering content moderation during the third quarter of 2023 and submit those reports to California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta by January 1, 2024.

Platforms could be found violating the law for failing to post terms of service about content moderation, missing a deadline to submit a terms of service report, or materially omitting or misrepresenting information about content moderation. Any platform violating the law risks fines – which X described as “draconian financial penalties” – up to $15,000 per violation per day.

TechCrunch reported that AB 587 was signed into law a year ago. At the time, California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote: “Californian’s deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day.”

According to TechCrunch, California has definitely placed itself at the heavier end of the government involvement spectrum, partly because of the states’ inherently progressive character and partly because, as the cradle and playground for many of these companies, it enjoys a particular attainment to and influence on their affairs. California’s privacy bill, for instance, is widely seen as a precursor to a national law similarly attempting to protect consumers from the depredations of tech companies.

The tendency is at odds with the philosophy of Elon Musk, owner of X/Twitter and self-described “free speech absolutist.” After more or less eliminating the teams and efforts at the company dedicated to defining and responding to matters like hate speech and disinformation, he may find it difficult to comply with AB 587 even if he did not find doing so objectionable.

In my opinion, proclaiming yourself to be a “free speech absolutist” is not going to cause California to suddenly drop AB 587. It appears that this specific California law could potentially be accepted by various other like-minded states. If so, then that would put more pressure on X to follow that law.