“Europe has become less competitive and less innovative compared to other regions and now risks falling further behind in the AI era due to inconsistent regulatory decision-making,” the letter states. This plea echoes the sentiments of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, who recently co-authored a similar letter calling for Europe to embrace open-source AI to remain competitive on the global stage.

Listen to our conversation on Meta’s EU warning. Will Europe miss out on the AI boom?

Fragmented Regulation Stifling Innovation

At the core of the open letter is a stark critique of the EU’s regulatory framework, particularly the uneven application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). While GDPR was designed to harmonize data protection across Europe, business leaders argue that inconsistent interpretations and unpredictable enforcement are creating a barrier to AI development. The inability of European regulators to reach consensus on how AI should use data is, according to these leaders, hindering the continent’s AI innovation.

“Meta has been told to delay training its models on content shared publicly by adults on Facebook and Instagram—not because any law has been violated but because regulators haven’t agreed on how to proceed,” Zuckerberg and Ek wrote in a previous letter, underscoring the frustration with regulatory ambiguity. This delay, they warn, prevents European AI models from being trained on European data, effectively ensuring that the continent’s AI development lags behind its global competitors.

In the most recent letter, the signatories emphasize the growing urgency, warning that without clear, harmonized regulations, Europe risks missing out on the massive economic potential AI promises. “Research estimates that Generative AI could increase global GDP by 10 percent over the coming decade, and EU citizens shouldn’t be denied that growth,” the letter stresses.

The Role of Open-Source AI in Europe’s Future

A significant portion of the letter focuses on the critical importance of open-source AI models—AI technologies that are freely available for developers to build upon and modify. These open models, the letter argues, offer a way for Europe to level the playing field and reclaim its technological edge by enabling small businesses, researchers, and public institutions to harness AI’s transformative potential.

Zuckerberg and Ek have previously highlighted the role of open-source AI in driving innovation, pointing out that it democratizes access to cutting-edge technology and helps institutions maintain control over their data. “The internet largely runs on open-source technologies, and so do most leading tech companies,” the two CEOs wrote. “We believe the next generation of ideas and startups will be built with open-source AI because it lets developers incorporate the latest innovations at low cost and gives institutions more control over their data.”

The letter emphasizes that Europe is particularly well-positioned to capitalize on open-source AI, noting that the region has more open-source developers than the United States. However, without regulatory clarity and support, Europe risks losing its advantage in this critical area. “Fragmented regulation is holding back developers and preventing Europe from realizing its full potential in AI,” the letter warns.

The Economic Stakes

The business leaders who signed the open letter argue that AI presents an unparalleled opportunity to boost productivity, drive scientific research, and add hundreds of billions of euros to the European economy. However, they caution that the current regulatory environment is deterring investment and innovation, both of which are critical to capturing these benefits.

The stakes are particularly high when it comes to multimodal AI models—advanced systems that can process text, images, and speech simultaneously. These models represent the next leap in AI capabilities and could have a profound impact on industries from healthcare to education. However, without access to the latest models, European businesses and researchers will be left using outdated technology. “These concerns aren’t theoretical,” Zuckerberg and Ek warned in their earlier letter. “Given the current regulatory uncertainty, Meta won’t be able to release upcoming models like Llama multimodal… European organizations won’t be able to get access to the latest open-source technology.”

The letter goes on to argue that Europe’s regulatory environment is not just limiting AI development but actively reducing the continent’s competitiveness. “Laws designed to increase European sovereignty and competitiveness are achieving the opposite,” it says, pointing out that many of Europe’s brightest AI talents are leaving the continent for regions with more supportive regulatory frameworks.

A Call for Harmonization and Clarity

Both the open letter and the previous statement by Zuckerberg and Ek emphasize the need for regulatory simplification and harmonization. Europe’s complex and inconsistent regulations, they argue, are creating a hostile environment for AI development and threatening the region’s ability to compete globally. “Europe should be simplifying and harmonizing regulations by leveraging the benefits of a single yet diverse market,” the executives argue, pointing to the widening gap between the number of homegrown European tech leaders and those emerging from the U.S. and Asia.

The letter concludes by urging EU policymakers to take decisive action and create a regulatory framework that fosters innovation while ensuring privacy and security. “With the right regulatory environment, combined with the right ambition and some of the world’s top AI talent, the EU would have a real chance of leading the next generation of tech innovation,” the letter states.

The Race Against Time

As AI continues to evolve at breakneck speed, Europe faces a critical decision: adopt a regulatory framework that supports innovation and fosters growth, or risk being left behind in the global AI race. “On its current course, Europe will miss this once-in-a-generation opportunity,” Zuckerberg and Ek warned. “Because the one thing Europe doesn’t have, unless it wants to risk falling further behind, is time.”

For now, the message from Europe’s business leaders is clear: the continent’s fragmented regulatory environment is holding back AI innovation, and without urgent reforms, Europe risks missing out on the transformative potential of artificial intelligence. The time to act, they argue, is now.

Some are lauding the return of X to Brazil as a major win for free speech, but nothing could be further from the truth. Famous journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out the massive concessions X had to make in order to return.

Not only did X cave on every single demand of the Brazilian government, but the company helped establish a terrifying principle. The Brazilian government now has an established track record of forcing a tech company that purports to support free speech and privacy to betray its users.

It’s safe to say this will not be the last time Brazil flexes its newfound muscle.

The company made the announcement on its website.

Tune in to our chat on TikTok Music’s sudden shutdown!

We are sorry to inform you that TikTok Music will be closing on 28 November 2024.

We would like to thank you for all of your support, and we hope you enjoyed the music. For more information, please click Help.

TikTok has been struggling on multiple fronts, with the company facing a potential ban in the US. At the same time, TikTok has had issues with the music industry, with Universal Music Group pulling its catalog from the service in early 2024, before the companies managed to come to an agreement.

In a statement to TechCrunch, TikTok said it was shutting the service down to better focus on driving value to existing music streaming services.

“Our Add to Music App feature has already enabled hundreds of millions of track saves to playlists on partner music streaming services. We will be closing TikTok Music at the end of November in order to focus on our goal of furthering TikTok’s role in driving even greater music listening and value on music streaming services, for the benefit of artists, songwriters, and the industry,” Ole Obermann, TikTok’s Global Head of Music Business Development, told the outlet.

As TechCrunch points out, TikTok’s legal issues in the US are likely a significant factor in the company’s decision to shutter its music service. With the entire platform’s future very much in question in the US, it puts the company at a huge disadvantage when it comes to negotiating content deals with other industries.

Only time will tell if the music service will reappear in the event TikTok prevails in its legal fight to stay alive in the US.

Until now, when a person blocked another account on X, the blocked account could no longer see that person’s posts. According to X owner Elon Musk, that functionality is changing, and will now only prevent the blocked account from interacting with the blocking account.

Catch our conversation on the big changes to X’s block button!

High time this happened.

The block function will block that account from engaging with, but not block seeing, public post.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 23, 2024

Needless to say, the announcement is causing significant amount of discussion, with people having strong opinions on both sides. As some users are pointing out, the previous blocking system was easy to circumvent, so the new functionality doesn’t fundamentally change much.

Good move!

The block button for public accounts was a stupid feature since everyone could view the posts from their browsers' incognito mode.

— Nima Owji (@nima_owji) September 23, 2024

On the other hand, other users are saying the existing block functionality provided just enough inconvenience to dissuade the vast majority of individuals who might be using X to stalk or harass a person.

I agree. The current block button solves 99% of the problem. Once the crazies cannot easily see the focus of their obsession, most of them move on.

Only 1% are truly insane and use burner accounts to continue. But now with all of the crazies able to continue to easily see the…

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) September 23, 2024

Only time will tell if the change results in more harassment, or if it is a non-factor.

Durov was arrested when his private jet landed in France. Authorities charged the CEO with helping to spread illegal content on Telegram, largely the result of the platform’s failure to provide any substantial moderation.

Hear how Telegram’s handing more data to governments in our latest chat!

According to Bloomberg, Durov has said the platform will begin cooperating with governments to a greater degree, giving them data in response to valid legal requests. Such data would include users’ phone numbers and IP addresses.

The announcement follows changes to the company’s moderation practices, in which it added the ability for users to report illegal content. In years past, Telegram took a notably anti-moderation stance, often refusing to cooperate with government requests even when it was within the power of the company to do so.

Adding to the company’s woes is the fact that it does not enable end-to-end encryption (E2EE) by default. As a result, Telegram does not have the same level of deniability as Signal, WhatsApp, or iMessage, where those platforms genuinely lack the ability to see what users are texting or sharing. Because E2EE is not enabled by default, Telegram can view the content of any chats where users have not explicitly enabled E2EE, eliminating any argument that it lacked the ability to moderate content.

Telegram is clearly trying to make concessions in an effort to appease France and other jurisdictions, although it remains to be seen what impact such actions will have on Durov’s case. If Frances’s case was aimed primarily at changing how Telegram operates, it is conceivable a plea deal could be reached as a result of Telegram’s concessions.

On the other hand, if France is looking to make an example of Durov and send a message to other messaging platforms, Telegram’s concession are a damning admission that the company always had the ability to do what governments have been asking.

Whatever the outcome for Durov, it’s a safe bet that Telegram’s new stance will not help it with some of its user base. For example, Ukraine recently banned Telegram from official devices over concerns that Russian intelligence may have access to chats. With Telegram signaling it will cooperate with government data requests, the platform will be far less appealing for activists, dissidents, journalists, and similar use cases.

As many security experts have previously said, users who truly need to protect their privacy would do better to use a more secure alternative, such as Signal, WhatsApp, or iMessage.

Musk and X engaged in a high-stakes face-off with Brazil after Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ruled that X must remove content the government didn’t like, as well as hand over information on up to 140 users. X refused to comply with the order, with Musk saying the order amounted to “unacceptable demands.”

Catch our take on X reportedly complying with Brazil’s censorship order!

“We’re not in the business of betraying our users,” Musk stated at the time, “especially not under pressure from a judiciary that disregards the principles of due process.”

In the days after Judge Moraes’ order, Musk was still decrying Brazil’s actions, saying the country was undermining free speech.

Despite the rhetoric, The New York Times is reporting that X has completely capitulated, giving in to the court’s demands. Specifically, X has removed the accounts that run afoul of the Brazilian government, has paid the fines levied against it, and has named a new company representative for its Brazil operations.

X is clearly trying to return its Brazil operations to normal and put the drama of the last few weeks behind it.

“The goal is to regularize the company’s situation in Brazil,” said Sérgio Rosenthal, one of the new attorneys X hired to represent its interests in the country.

As The Times points out, despite X’s apparent efforts to resolve the situation legally, there was some evidence to suggest the company was trying to circumvent the court order, since X was once again accessible within Brazil. Despite how it appeared, X said its availability within the country was not intentional, and not meant as an effort to thwart Judge Moraes’ decision.

The explanation did not convince anyone within the government, with Brazil’s telecoms regulator Anatel saying it thought X’s actions were “a deliberate intention to disregard the Federal Supreme Court’s order.”

The Times reports that Judge Moraes levied a fine of $1 million per day and ordered new measures to block X once again.

Ultimately, however, the entire situation will forever be remembered as the time Musk went toe-to-toe with a Brazilian judge—and blinked.

The SEC’s move adds a new layer of complexity to Musk’s ongoing legal battles, as the regulatory agency probes whether Musk broke securities laws when he began purchasing shares of Twitter (now known as X) in 2022. In a court filing, the SEC stated it would pursue a motion to hold Musk in civil contempt, citing his last-minute decision to cancel his testimony as a violation of a May court order.

Catch our conversation on the SEC targeting Elon Musk… as supporters cry political bias!

Musk’s Missed Testimony and the SpaceX Launch

According to the SEC, Musk’s testimony was critical to the investigation. The regulator has been looking into whether Musk failed to properly disclose his stock purchases in Twitter, which eventually culminated in his full acquisition of the company. The SEC requires shareholders who acquire more than 5% of a company’s stock to disclose their holdings within ten days—something Musk delayed.

Musk’s lawyers, however, argued that the missed deposition was due to an “emergency” that required the Tesla and SpaceX CEO to travel to Florida. Musk was overseeing a critical launch at Cape Canaveral for SpaceX’s Polaris Dawn mission on the same day as his scheduled testimony. “His obligations as Chief Technology Officer of SpaceX required he urgently travel to the East Coast,” said Alex Spiro, Musk’s attorney, in a filing defending Musk’s absence.

The SEC isn’t buying the explanation. “Musk’s excuse itself smacks of gamesmanship,” SEC lawyer Robin Andrews argued in court filings. The agency contended that Musk, who holds numerous roles as CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and other ventures, had ample notice of the scheduling conflict but waited until just three hours before the deposition to notify the SEC of his nonappearance. Andrews added, “The court must make clear that Musk’s gamesmanship and delay tactics must cease.”

A History of SEC Tensions

This is not Musk’s first legal battle with the SEC. The billionaire has a long and rocky history with the agency, dating back to 2018 when he tweeted about potentially taking Tesla private. That incident led to a $20 million fine and an agreement that Tesla would pre-approve certain public communications by Musk. Musk later said in an interview that the SEC was engaging in “regulatory capture,” accusing the agency of prioritizing its own interests over those of small investors.

In a discussion with Lex Fridman, Musk remarked on the SEC’s failure to hold large hedge funds accountable for manipulating Tesla stock, saying, “Not once did the SEC go after any of the hedge funds who were non-stop shorting and distorting Tesla. The hedge funds would lie flat out on TV for their own gain…and not once did the SEC pursue them.”

SEC’s Concerns Over Twitter Acquisition

The SEC’s current investigation revolves around whether Musk’s acquisition of Twitter involved securities fraud. The agency claims that Musk’s delayed disclosure of his growing stake in Twitter may have influenced the stock market and harmed other investors. At the time of his Twitter share purchases, Musk had crossed the threshold of 5% ownership but delayed his formal disclosure, eventually revealing a 9.2% stake before making a move to buy the entire company.

The SEC’s ongoing investigation aims to determine whether Musk’s actions, including his public statements and trading activity, violated any securities regulations. The federal agency’s probe is also scrutinizing whether Musk influenced other investors’ decisions by delaying the disclosure of his Twitter stake.

Is the Future of Musk’s X Platform at Stake?

As the SEC continues to scrutinize Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter—now rebranded as X—questions have surfaced about whether the agency’s motivations are purely regulatory or politically charged. Musk’s transformation of Twitter into X has drawn significant attention, not only for his sweeping operational changes but also for his outspoken stance on free speech. Musk’s takeover has disrupted the established social media ecosystem, positioning X as a platform less beholden to the kind of content moderation seen on other major platforms, such as Facebook (now Meta) and Instagram.

X is the only platform that the regime has no control over which is why they are targeting it.

They own the media, Hollywood, and META platforms.

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 20, 2024

Many of Musk’s supporters argue that the SEC’s focus on his Twitter acquisition is politically motivated. Commentators on X, formerly Twitter, have speculated that Musk’s commitment to free speech has made him a target for a political system that prefers greater control over platforms. Collin Rugg, a prominent commentator, posted, “X is the only platform that the regime has no control over, which is why they are targeting it.

They own the media, Hollywood, and META platforms.” This sentiment resonates with Musk’s defenders, who believe that his platform’s departure from mainstream media and Silicon Valley orthodoxy has made him a threat to the status quo.

NEW: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) intends to seek sanctions against Elon Musk for failing to appear for court-ordered testimony for his Twitter takeover.

The Swamp doesn't like it when they can't control what you say.

The SEC is investigating whether or not… pic.twitter.com/aNUfXAKdCQ

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 20, 2024

Lex Fridman: In its best form, could the SEC be a force for good?

Elon Musk:

It should be, but not once did the DEC go after any of the hedge funds who were non-stop shorting and distorting Tesla. Not once. The hedge funds would lie flat out on TV for their own gain, at the expense of retail investors. Literally a thousand times. Not once did the SEC pursue them. 

Lex Fridman: How do you explain this failure?

Elon Musk: 

The incentive structure is messed up. The lawyers of the SEC are not paid well. It’s a fairly low-paying job. What they’re looking for is a trophy. From the SEC, they’r looking for something they can put on their LinkedIn and from that, they can get a job at a high-paying law firm. 

The reason they don’t attach the hedge funds is because those hedge funds employ those law firms. They know: If they attach the hedge funds they’re affecting their future career prospects. So they sell small investors down the river for their own career. That’s what actually happens. Regulatory capture. It’s not good. 

Further amplifying the claims of political bias, another user, Jericho, argued that Musk’s independence is a primary concern for the political establishment: “They have targeted Elon because his X platform is wiping legacy media off the map, and of course they don’t like the free speech aspect of it, and it’s the largest platform that they don’t control.” These concerns tie into broader anxieties about free speech, with Musk seen as a rare figure in tech who has resisted government and corporate influence over what content is allowed online.

Critics have also suggested that Musk’s political leanings may have made him a lightning rod for the Biden administration’s regulatory apparatus. While the SEC’s investigation is ostensibly about potential securities violations, several commentators believe there is more at play. Valentina Gomez noted on X, “The SEC is now the latest agency to be weaponized against a law-abiding Citizen. This is why Mark Cuban is trying to force the buy of X, so they can control free speech. I’m with Elon.” The implication here is that Musk’s control over X, a platform with significant influence on public discourse, has put him at odds with the federal government, which is led by the Biden administration, a Democratic White House.

Elon Musk endorses Trump, and then this happens:

• Secret Service probes Elon over a joke he posted.

• California Governor wants to take legal action against Elon for posting a meme.

• FAA propose $633,009 in civil penalties against SpaceX.

• SEC intends to seek sanctions… pic.twitter.com/PllTyWeHFQ

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) September 21, 2024

This line of thought underscores the broader concerns about regulatory capture and political bias. Critics argue that the SEC, as part of the executive branch, could be influenced by the political priorities of the administration in power. Given that the Biden administration has taken strong stances on social media regulation, particularly around misinformation and content moderation, it’s plausible that Musk’s free speech advocacy on X—often framed in opposition to government-imposed limits—may have drawn additional scrutiny.

Musk himself has frequently criticized regulatory bodies, including the SEC, for what he sees as their alignment with powerful corporate interests and political agendas. In a conversation with Lex Fridman, Musk commented, “The SEC…they’re looking for something they can put on their LinkedIn and from that, they can get a job at a high-paying law firm.” He went on to say that the SEC tends to avoid going after big players, such as hedge funds, and instead targets smaller, more vulnerable entities or individuals. Musk’s criticism of the SEC extends to claims of “regulatory capture,” where government agencies purportedly serve the interests of those they are meant to regulate rather than the public.

This criticism has fed into the perception that the SEC’s actions against Musk are not solely about enforcing securities laws but are instead part of a broader effort to curtail his influence—particularly as he wields control over one of the largest social media platforms. The rebranding of Twitter to X has only intensified these concerns, as X has increasingly positioned itself as a free-speech haven, contrasting with the more controlled environments of Meta and other platforms.

The potential political motivations behind the SEC’s actions are further complicated by Musk’s fraught relationship with the Democratic establishment. While Musk has expressed support for various political figures across the spectrum, his increasingly vocal critiques of government overreach have aligned him more with libertarian and conservative viewpoints, particularly on issues of free speech and regulation. This has not gone unnoticed by his critics, who see his acquisition of Twitter and its rebranding as X as a deliberate move to challenge the prevailing norms of media control and influence.

As the legal drama unfolds, the question remains: Is the SEC acting within its regulatory mandate, or is it part of a broader political effort to rein in a figure who has become increasingly defiant of governmental and corporate influence? Musk’s supporters argue that the latter is more likely, pointing to the Biden administration’s broader push to regulate social media platforms and combat what it calls “misinformation.”

While the SEC has not commented on any political motivations behind its probe, the timing of its actions—coinciding with Musk’s free-speech advocacy and transformation of X—has led to widespread speculation that this is more than just a case of securities enforcement. As the legal and political battles continue, Musk’s supporters will likely see him as a maverick standing up to a system intent on stifling dissent, while his critics will argue that his disregard for regulation warrants close scrutiny. Either way, the SEC’s actions are bound to have significant implications for both Musk and the future of X.

What’s Next for Musk?

Musk’s legal team has rescheduled the missed deposition for October 3, but the SEC has expressed doubts that he will comply. “Without further action by the Court, nothing deters Musk” from missing future testimony, the agency warned in its filings. If the court sides with the SEC, Musk could face sanctions, including fines or other legal consequences.

The broader implications of this case remain unclear. While the SEC continues to probe whether Musk broke securities laws in his Twitter takeover, the tech mogul’s ongoing leadership of Tesla, SpaceX, and X suggests that his influence will not wane any time soon. Yet the tension between Musk and federal regulators signals that legal scrutiny will continue to follow one of the world’s most high-profile entrepreneurs.

For now, all eyes remain on the October 3 deposition, where Musk is expected to finally testify. Whether this will bring resolution to the SEC’s probe—or merely fuel more controversy—remains to be seen.

According to Reuters, Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council made the decision following a report by Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s GUR military intelligence agency, in which evidence suggests Russia’s intelligence agencies are able to access Telegram data. Of note is the fact that the ban only applies to official devices, not personal use.

Catch our chat on Ukraine banning Telegram—Russian spying fears!

Telegram, and its founder Pavel Durov, have long claimed that the platform rivals or exceeds the security provided by Signal or WhatsApp. Virtually all security experts dispute that claim, especially since Telegram chats are not encrypted using end-to-end encryption (E2EE) by default. Instead, the feature has to be specifically enabled by the user.

That lack of E2EE may well be at the heart of the French case against Pavel Durov, with French authorities accusing the executive and his company of not properly moderating illegal content on the platform. Because Telegram does not enable E2EE by default, Telegram cannot make the claim that it can’t access the content, and therefore can’t moderate it.

Budanov made clear that his recommendation was not based on issues with freedom of speech, but rather out of national security concerns.

“I have always supported and continue to support freedom of speech, but the issue of Telegram is not a matter of freedom of speech, it is a matter of national security,” Budanov said in a statement.

Social media, and Big Tech in general, have increasingly been in the spotlight for how they collect and monetize user data. While it’s been well known that social media companies do this, recent revelations have revealed just how much these companies surveil users, with the FTC report shedding light on video streaming services’ practices as well.

Listen to our deep dive into the not-so-secret world of shady data collection! FTC takes aim!

“The report lays out how social media and video streaming companies harvest an enormous amount of Americans’ personal data and monetize it to the tune of billions of dollars a year,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “While lucrative for the companies, these surveillance practices can endanger people’s privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking. Several firms’ failure to adequately protect kids and teens online is especially troubling. The Report’s findings are timely, particularly as state and federal policymakers consider legislation to protect people from abusive data practices.”

The report found the platforms in question use a variety of tactics to collect “troves of data” on “both users and non-users of their platforms.” Practices included getting data from data brokers, not just from the companies’ own platforms.

To make matters worse, the report found serious issues with how companies handle the data they collect, noting “that the companies’ data collection, minimization and retention practices were “’woefully inadequate.’”

The staff report also found that the business models of many of the companies incentivized mass collection of user data to monetize, especially through targeted advertising, which accounts for most of their revenue. It further noted that those incentives were in tension with user privacy, and therefore posed risks to users’ privacy. Notably, the report found that some companies deployed privacy-invasive tracking technologies, such as pixels, to facilitate advertising to users based on preferences and interests.

Additionally, the staff report highlighted the many ways in which the companies fed users’ and non-users’ personal information into their automated systems, including for use by their algorithms, data analytics, and AI. The report found that users and non-users had little or no way to opt out of how their data was used by these automated systems, and that there were differing, inconsistent, and inadequate approaches to monitoring and testing the use of automated systems.

The report also found significant issues with how companies handle data pertaining to children and teens, concluding there are not enough safeguards in place.

Furthermore, the staff report concluded that the social media and video streaming services didn’t adequately protect children and teens on their sites. The report cited research that found social media and digital technology contributed to negative mental health impacts on young users.

Based on the data collected, the staff report said many companies assert that there are no children on their platforms because their services were not directed to children or did not allow children to create accounts. The staff report noted that this was an apparent attempt to avoid liability under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule. The staff report found that the social media and video streaming services often treated teens the same as adult users, with most companies allowing teens on their platforms with no account restrictions.

Ultimately, the FTC’s report is non-binding, with no immediate impact on the companies being studied. Nonetheless, the agency makes a number of recommendations, including two that could ultimately have a profound impact on the above companies.

• Congress should pass comprehensive federal privacy legislation to limit surveillance, address baseline protections, and grant consumers data rights.
• Congress should pass federal privacy legislation to fill the gap in privacy protections provided by COPPA for teens over the age of 13.

In addition, the FTC wants companies to take voluntary measures to limit data collection and protect user privacy.

• Companies should limit data collection, implement concrete and enforceable data minimization and retention policies, limit data sharing with third parties and affiliates, delete consumer data when it is no longer needed, and adopt consumer-friendly privacy policies that are clear, simple, and easily understood;
• Companies should not collect sensitive information through privacy-invasive ad tracking technologies;
• Companies should carefully examine their policies and practices regarding ad targeting based on sensitive categories;
• Companies should address the lack of user control over how their data is used by systems as well as the lack of transparency regarding how such systems are used, and also should implement more stringent testing and monitoring standards for such systems; Companies should not ignore the reality that there are child users on their platforms and should treat COPPA as representing the minimum requirements and provide additional safety measures for children;
• The Companies should recognize teens are not adults and provide them greater privacy protections.

Unfortunately, unless Congress tackles the first two items, there is virtuall no chance companies will voluntarily address the remaining items.

Thanks to the FTC’s report, however, users at least have a much clearer picture of how their data is being collected and retained.

Snapchat’s AI video tool is set to be released in beta on the web, available only to a select group of creators for the time being. While there are no immediate plans to roll the tool out more broadly, the limited release reflects Snap’s strategy of maintaining control over quality while ensuring the tool is fully optimized for creators’ needs.

Listen to a podcast conversation on Snapchat’s new AI video tool. It’s pretty cool!

Snap Outpaces Competitors in the AI Space

By introducing this AI video generation tool, Snapchat is positioning itself ahead of its primary social media competitors, including TikTok, Instagram, and Meta. None of these platforms have yet publicly introduced a comparable AI-powered video creation feature, despite the rapid pace of AI development across industries. Meta did unveil a text-to-video tool, Make-A-Video, back in 2022, but it remains unreleased to the public.

“This is a major technological leap for Snapchat, especially when you consider the current landscape of AI in social media,” says David Carter, a senior analyst at AI Insights Lab. “While other platforms are still in the experimentation phase, Snap is already making AI video generation accessible to creators. This could provide them with a first-mover advantage in a space that is poised to explode.”

Snap’s aggressive move into AI video generation underscores its desire to remain at the cutting edge of tech innovation, particularly in a competitive environment where creators are constantly looking for new ways to produce engaging content. “The race is on, and Snapchat is leading it—for now,” Carter adds. “But the question remains: Can they maintain this lead as bigger players like Meta and TikTok start rolling out their AI offerings?”

The Technology Behind Snap AI Video

Snap’s new tool is built on its own proprietary foundational video models, an important factor that differentiates it from many competitors that rely on third-party models or AI engines. “We’ve designed this tool specifically with our creators in mind,” says a Snap spokesperson. “Our internal video models are optimized for creative flexibility, allowing users to go from a simple text prompt to a fully rendered video in a matter of minutes.”

The level of customization and scalability offered by Snap’s AI models could make this a highly valuable tool for creators who need to generate high-quality video content quickly. “Video content remains king in the digital world, but producing high-quality, engaging videos takes time and resources,” says James Bennett, a digital media consultant with an emphasis on AI. “Snap’s AI video generation tool has the potential to cut down production times drastically, enabling creators to focus more on storytelling and engagement rather than the technical aspects of video editing.”

The company also emphasizes that safety and content moderation are integral parts of the AI video generation tool’s design. “Our models undergo rigorous safety evaluations and testing to prevent harmful content,” explained a Snap spokesperson. This is particularly relevant as AI-generated content continues to raise ethical concerns, especially around the potential for misuse. “We’ve taken great care to integrate safety measures at every step of the content creation process—from the training of our models to the final output,” the spokesperson added.

Transparency and Ethical AI

Snap is placing a strong emphasis on transparency in its use of AI, a move that many experts in the field applaud as crucial to maintaining trust in the technology. Ceci Mourkogiannis, Snap’s vice president of product, addressed these concerns during the summit keynote. “We know it’s important for our community to be informed when AI is being used to generate content,” she said. To ensure this, all AI-generated content on Snapchat will include a visible watermark, and users will be notified when AI has played a role in the creation of a Snap through icons and context cards.

These transparency features have been met with praise from AI ethicists. “In an era where AI-generated deepfakes and misinformation are serious concerns, Snap’s decision to embed watermarks and make AI usage clear to users is a step in the right direction,” notes Laura Peterson, a professor of AI ethics at Stanford University. “The challenge with AI video is that the more seamless and human-like it becomes, the easier it is for it to be misused. Snap’s proactive approach in addressing these concerns from the outset is commendable.”

However, despite these efforts, the tool is not without its challenges. AI-generated content still faces skepticism from both creators and users. “There’s always a risk that audiences may view AI-generated videos as less authentic or less creative,” adds Peterson. “Snap will need to tread carefully and ensure that creators have the flexibility to blend AI with their personal touch, so the human element is never lost.”

Competing with AI Giants

Snap’s foray into AI-generated video places it in direct competition not just with social media platforms but also with tech behemoths like Adobe, OpenAI, and emerging startups such as Runway. All of these companies are expected to release their own text-to-video tools soon, intensifying the competition.

“Adobe’s and OpenAI’s products will certainly appeal to a more professional audience, given their established reputation in creative software and AI development,” says Sarah Liu, a venture capitalist specializing in AI startups. “Snap is targeting a niche that’s closer to its core audience—social media influencers, content creators, and digital marketers. But as the technology advances, we could see significant crossover into more professional creative fields.”

The fact that Snap hasn’t shared specific examples of AI-generated video outputs raises questions about the tool’s current capabilities. “We’re still waiting to see how this performs in the wild,” Liu adds. “The next few months will be critical for Snap to demonstrate not just that the tool works, but that it offers something compelling enough for creators to embrace it fully.”

Challenges Ahead

Snap’s new AI tool is entering an increasingly competitive market, and success is not guaranteed. “Snapchat’s audience skews younger, which could work in their favor,” says Ethan Russo, a digital strategist who has advised several Fortune 500 companies on AI adoption. “Young creators are more open to experimenting with new tools, especially those that reduce the friction in content production. But with competition from both large tech companies and nimble startups, Snap will need to iterate quickly to stay ahead.”

The company’s decision to limit the rollout of the tool to a small group of creators could also be a double-edged sword. “On one hand, a controlled beta launch allows Snap to troubleshoot issues and improve the product based on real-world feedback,” Russo continues. “On the other hand, they risk losing momentum to competitors who might be more aggressive in their rollouts.”

Furthermore, the adoption of AI tools in content creation comes with its own set of risks. “AI technology still has limitations, particularly in maintaining consistency across longer-form content,” explains Russo. “Snap will need to find ways to balance AI’s efficiencies with the quality and authenticity that audiences expect from their favorite creators.”

The Future of AI and Content Creation

Snapchat’s new AI video generation tool is not just another feature—it represents a broader shift toward AI-powered creativity in the digital space. As the lines between human and AI-generated content blur, platforms like Snapchat will play a critical role in shaping how this technology is used and perceived.

“This is only the beginning,” concludes Bennett. “AI will fundamentally change how creators work, but it’s essential that platforms like Snap continue to put human creativity at the forefront. The tools should enhance, not replace, the creative process.”

In the coming months, it will become clearer whether Snapchat’s gamble on AI will pay off. But one thing is certain: the race to integrate AI into content creation has officially begun, and Snapchat is leading the charge—for now.

Bluesky is the decentralized X-like platform that was backed by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey. The platform has continued to grow at a rapid pace, thanks largely to discontent with changes to Twitter (now X) following Elon Musk’s purchase of it.

Brazil’s ban on X has provided another major boost to Bluesky, with the platform gaining one million users in three days in the aftermath of the ban.

Bluesky announced it has now topped 10 million users, a major win for the company.

Social media platforms have come under increased scrutiny, especially in the context of protecting minors. Studies have shown that social media can have significant detrimental impacts on the mental health of minors, not to mention potentially exposing them to predatory individuals online. While tobacco, alcohol, and other potentially dangerous products come with warning labels, social media does not.

The attorneys general are calling for such labels, making the case that social media’s impacts on minors warrants the move.

As State Attorneys General, we sometimes disagree about important issues, but all of us share an abiding concern for the safety of the kids in our jurisdictions—and algorithm-driven social media platforms threaten that safety. A growing body of research links young people’s use of those social media platforms to a variety of serious psychological harms, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Algorithm-driven social media use also interferes with adolescents’ daily life by chronically disrupting their sleep with irresistible algorithmic recommendations, infinite scrolling, and a constant stream of notifications designed to keep kids relentlessly engaged on the platform.

The letter highlights the various actions some states have taken to reign in social media platforms, including lawsuits against Meta and investigations of TikTok. The attorneys general make the case, however, that federal involvement is necessary.

In addition to the states’ historic efforts, this ubiquitous problem requires federal action—and a surgeon general’s warning on social media platforms, though not sufficient to address the full scope of the problem, would be one consequential step toward mitigating the risk of harm to youth. A warning would not only highlight the inherent risks that social media platforms presently pose for young people, but also complement other efforts to spur attention, research, and investment into the oversight of social media platforms. We urge Congress to consider such measures and continue the search for innovative solutions to protect our children in the face of emerging technologies. The Senate’s recent passage of the Kids Online Safety Act and the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act demonstrated significant bipartisan commitment to tackling these critical issues.

This problem will not solve itself and the social media platforms have demonstrated an unwillingness to fix the problem on their own. Therefore, we urge Congress to act by requiring warnings on algorithm-driven social media platforms, as recommended by the Surgeon General.

The letter represents the latest escalation in the ongoing debate regarding the role social media should and should not play in the live of children.

States supporting the letter include California, Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Alabama, American Samoa, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, US Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Following Musk’s purchase of X, the mercurial executive began slashing the security and moderation teams, leading to widespread criticism and accusations that hate speech began flourishing on the platform. In late 2022, US senators expressed concern to the FTC, saying that Musk “has taken alarming steps that have undermined the integrity and safety of the platform, and announced new features despite clear warnings those changes would be abused for fraud, scams and dangerous impersonation.”

According to TechRadar, X appears to be on a hiring spree, undoing some of the layoffs that have happened over the past two years. X cut the Trust and Safety team to 2,849, down from 4,026. Full-time moderators dropped from 107 to 51. The company has listed openings for at least two dozen jobs, all of them in cybersecurity and safety.

Why the About Face

There is no word on why X is suddenly reversing course, but it’s not hard to imagine. Telegram CEO Pavel Durov was recently arrested for his company’s lack of moderation, with France trying to hold him personally responsible for Telegram’s failures. Elon Musk has already indicated that he may begin limiting his travel to countries where free speech is constitutionally guaranteed. Nonetheless, it’s not a stretch to believe that Musk and X may be looking to stave off the kind of legal action Telegram and Durov are facing by bolstering moderation.

Similarly, X recently sued the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), the World Federation of Advertisers, and a number of corporations, alleging illegally boycotted advertising on the platform as a result of corporations’ advertising appearing next to posts that included hate speech and other toxic content. It’s possible X may be trying to proactively address the complaints in an effort to bolster its court case.

Whatever the cause for X’s about face, improved security and moderation can only improve the platform’s situation.

News broke over the weekend about IRD’s deals with Facebook and LinkedIn, a deal that sees lists of hundreds of thousands of users’ data sent to the forms to drive ad campaigns. To make matters worse, tax payers had no recourse or way of opting out.

The agency initially defended it’s actions by saying that all data—which includes names, birthdates, phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses—was properly anonymized by hashing it. There’s just one big issue: Hashing data does not reliably anonymize data.

The Problem With Hashing

Hashing involves converting text or data into strings of numbers and letters, making the original text unreadable without the algorithm that was used.

Unfortunately, as both RNZ and The New Zealand Herald highlight on their coverage, hashing has long since been discarded as a viable means of securely anonymizing data. In fact, the US Federal Trade Commission explained how hashing worked in July 2024, and pointed out the flaws in the process.

Hashing involves taking a piece of data—like an email address, a phone number, or a user ID—and using math to turn it into a number (called a hash) in a consistent way: the same input data will always create the same hash. For example, hashing the fictional phone number “123-456-7890” transforms it into the hash “2813448ce6316cb70b38fa29c8c64130”, a hexadecimal number that might appear random, but is always what someone gets when they hash that phone number.

Hashing has a nice potential benefit: a hash by itself cannot easily be used to guess what the original data was. For this reason, companies often use hashing in cases where they are uncomfortable writing down or sharing the directly identifying data, but they still want to be able to store the data for matching against later. Since the hash “2813448ce6316cb70b38fa29c8c64130” appears meaningless and seemingly can’t be used to find the original phone number, companies often claim that hashing allows them to preserve user privacy.

Unfortunately, as the FTC goes on to say say that such logic is flawed, and hashing should not be relied on alone.

This logic is as old as it is flawed – hashes aren’t “anonymous” and can still be used to identify users, and their misuse can lead to harm. Companies should not act or claim as if hashing personal information renders it anonymized. FTC staff will remain vigilant to ensure companies are following the law and take action when the privacy claims they make are deceptive.

European regulators arrived at a similar conclusion in 2019, finding that hashed data could be de-anonymized.

In fact, it is generally a trivial process to de-anonymize data that has been hashed. Jonathan Wright, a developer and cybersecurity consultant, told RNZ that he was able to use basic online tools to de-anonymize hashed data from his bank, saying he could do it “in sub-one second.”

Despite the clear evidence that hashing is not a secure and private solution, IRD and Revenue Minister Simon Watts maintained it was viable, and adequately protected user data. It was only after multiple outlets reported on the issue that IRD finally said it will investigate the data sharing.

The Bigger Issue

The bigger issue, in many people’s minds, is why IRD thought it was acceptable to share taxpayers’ data with social media companies in the first place. In an era where corporate data collection and surveillance has reached Orwellian proportions, many believe government’s role should be to protect users and their data, not get in bed with the very companies abusing users’ trust.

“Our biggest government department and our biggest corporations in New Zealand… are doing this on a wholesale level,” David Buckingham, a Queenstown employment consultant, told RNZ.

“It’s not us who are giving over our details. It’s a third party who are giving over our details without our knowledge,” Buckingham added.

“The kind of campaigns that might take place essentially allows these companies to have a level of profile that… we don’t know about, and… if we did know about it, we wouldn’t want to consent.”

The Ban on X: A National Flashpoint

At the heart of the protests is the August 30 ruling by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes to suspend X in Brazil, a move that followed Musk’s refusal to take down conservative accounts falsely accused of spreading “hate speech and misinformation.” This decision, part of a larger legal battle between the tech mogul and Brazil’s judiciary, has divided the nation. While de Moraes framed the ban as necessary to curb digital disinformation, many Brazilians saw it as a dangerous overreach.

“Our freedom is at stake,” said Francisco Carlos, a businessman draped in Brazil’s flag during the São Paulo protests. “They used to burn books to silence people; now they ban social media.” Like many others at the demonstration, Carlos voiced his support for the impeachment of Justice de Moraes, reflecting the growing frustration with the country’s legal system.

Hundreds of thousands just took to the streets to protest against the socialist regime in Brazil and if not for X, you wouldn't know about it pic.twitter.com/nl5VtubZdy

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 25, 2024

The decision to ban X comes as Brazil prepares for municipal elections in October. Many conservative politicians and Bolsonaro supporters argue that the court’s actions are an attempt to censor right-leaning opposition ahead of these crucial elections. “It’s clear that this is about controlling the narrative,” said Valter Diniz, a São Paulo store owner. “Musk is the only guy brave enough to take on that charlatan,” referring to de Moraes. Like many at the protest, Diniz sported flags emblazoned with Musk’s face, casting the billionaire as an unlikely hero in the fight for free speech.

Musk, Bolsonaro, and Brazil’s Tilt Toward Totalitarianism

The protest, held on Brazil’s Independence Day, was an opportunity for former President Jair Bolsonaro to showcase his enduring influence. Though Bolsonaro’s term ended 20 months ago, the event served as a stark reminder of his ability to rally his base. Many protesters, donning Brazil’s national colors of green and yellow, criticized de Moraes not only for the X ban but for his broader actions against Bolsonaro and his supporters.

Bolsonaro himself has been a frequent target of the Supreme Court. De Moraes has spearheaded multiple investigations into the former president, including allegations of falsifying a COVID-19 vaccination certificate and an attempt to import diamonds without declaring their value. Bolsonaro has dismissed these investigations as politically motivated. In a video posted before the protests, he framed Brazil’s Independence Day as a day of lost freedom: “A country without freedom has nothing to celebrate on this date.”

For many Bolsonaro supporters, the X ban is emblematic of a broader attack on conservative voices. A survey by AtlasIntel found that nearly 51% of Brazilians disagreed with the platform’s suspension. While supporters of current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva praised the ban as a necessary tool to combat disinformation, opponents viewed it as a crackdown on free speech.

“Brazil’s leftist government is no different than the regimes we see in China or Russia,” said retiree Elayne Nunes, who had traveled from Minas Gerais to join the protest. “They can silence us, but they won’t stop us.”

Global Implications: A Censorship Controversy Ignored?

The controversy surrounding the X ban has gained international attention, with Musk himself taking to his platform to denounce the actions of Brazil’s judiciary. Musk recently described de Moraes as “Brazil’s Darth Vader,” accusing him of dictatorial overreach. Despite this, U.S. media outlets have been notably quiet on the subject. In a world where every political development in countries like Russia or China garners front-page headlines, the Brazilian protests have largely been relegated to niche coverage.

James Melville, a political commentator, remarked on X, “The enormous number of Brazilian people protesting against censorship and standing up for free speech should be headline news everywhere.” His sentiment was echoed by many within Brazil and beyond. In the U.S., however, coverage of the protests has been sparse, and the discourse around free speech and digital platforms remains largely focused on domestic concerns.

The Growing Divide in Brazil

The demonstrations in São Paulo were not isolated. Protests against the ban on X erupted across the country, from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia. The sheer scale of the protests underscores the deep divisions in Brazilian society. On one side are those who argue that controlling disinformation is essential to protecting democracy. On the other are those who see the government’s actions as creeping authoritarianism.

For many Brazilians, the X ban feels like the tipping point in a long-standing battle over the country’s democratic future. “We’ve already lived through one dictatorship, and we won’t let it happen again,” said Laura Piu, a São Paulo protester. Like others, Piu voiced fears that the current government is using the judiciary to silence opposition. “De Moraes thinks he can control what we say, what we think. But we won’t be silenced.”

What Lies Ahead?

As Brazil heads into its municipal elections, the X ban and the protests it has sparked will undoubtedly shape the country’s political landscape. The clash between Musk and Brazil’s judiciary is far from over. De Moraes shows no signs of backing down, insisting that social media platforms must comply with Brazilian law. Meanwhile, Musk continues to frame the fight as one for global free speech, with the platform remaining banned in Brazil as of this writing.

In the words of São Paulo protester Mayara Ribeira, “The world is watching us. What happens here will set the tone for how free speech is treated everywhere.” Whether or not the world is indeed watching remains an open question. For now, as massive protests shake Brazil, the U.S. media remains conspicuously silent.

Media Silence is Deafening (and Embarrassing)

Pickles made the announce—where else?—on X Thursday, although he says he made the decision several months ago. The executive indicated he has been working with CEO Linda Yaccarino, since his decision, to ensure a smooth transition.

After more than ten years, tomorrow will be my last day at X. It's been an incredible journey. 
 
The constant across my time at Twitter and X has been the amazing people I've worked with inside and outside the company. It's been a privilege to lead the @globalaffairs team and I…

— Nick Pickles (@nickpickles) September 6, 2024

There is no word on who his replacement will be.

Contrary to popular opinion, and Telegram’s own marketing, the platform does not offer the same out-of-the-box security as Signal, WhatsApp, or iMessage. While Telegram does offer end-to-end encryption (E2EE), it is not enabled in chats by default, and opt-in instead.

As a result, Telegram is in a unique position among encrypted platforms, since the company can access any chats and messages for which users have not specifically enabled E2EE. This is one of the biggest issues propping up France’s claims, with French authorities accusing Telegram and Durov of not doing enough to moderate illegal content on the platform. Because E2EE is not enabled by default, as it is on virtually all of Telegram’s competitors, the company cannot say it is unable to moderate content.

Read More: Elon Musk May Limit Travel to Free Speech-Only Countries After Telegram

Telegram appears to be making a change to its official stand, updating its FAQ to tell inform individuals how they can report illegal content.

Q: There’s illegal content on Telegram. How do I take it down?

All Telegram apps have ‘Report’ buttons that let you flag illegal content for our moderators — in just a few taps. On Telegram Desktop, Web or Telegram for macOS, right-click the message and select Report. Then choose an appropriate reason.

You can also use our automated takedown email address abuse@telegram.org. If you’re sending an email takedown request, please make sure to include links (like t.me/… or @…) to the content on Telegram which you think needs attention from our moderators.

Users from the EU are welcome to study the User Guidance for the EU Digital Services Act for the relevant reporting options.

This is a noticeable change from the company’s previous FAQ (via Internet Archive), in which it simply stated:

All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them.

See Also: Emmanuel Macron Says Government Not Involved In Arrest Of Telegram CEO

France’s actions against Telegram have clearly resulted in a major change in how the company operates. Such action is likely being taken to protect the company against further prosecution from other countries. Telegram may hope that addressing its moderation issues could help in negotiations with French authorities, with the charges against Durov possibly being dropped if the underlying issue is addressed.

On the other hand, by changing its terms, Telegram has signaled that it is—and always was—capable of moderating much of the content on its platform. If French authorities are unwilling to work out a deal, and opt to make an example of Durov, Telegram has just undermined any possible defense revolving around the argument moderation was not technically possible.

According to the Supreme Federal Court’s website, a five-judge panel upheld Moraes’ decision, saying companies must abide by Brazilian law, regardless of how big they are, or how big their bank accounts are.

“The economic power and size of the bank account do not give birth to a ridiculous immunity from jurisdiction”, stressed Minister Flavio Dino.

“No one can intend to develop their activities in Brazil without observing the laws and the Federal” Constitution, added Minister Cristiano Zanin.

Interestingly, the only hint of disent came from Minister Luiz Fux. While agreeing with the ban, Fux expressed concern over plans to fine Brazilians who use VPNs to continue accessing X. The plans involved fining such individuals nearly $9,000 per day, a move that could quickly bankrupt some.

Instead, Fux said punitive measures should be reserved for those who use the platform to spread ‘racism, fascism, Nazism, or which obstruct criminal investigates, or incite crimes in general.’

The Supreme Court’s decision shuts down one of the last hopes users had of Moraes’ decision being reversed. With the court’s decision, it’s a safe bet the X drama isn’t going to end anytime soon.

Brazil has drawn widespread criticism following Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ decision to ban X from the country. The decision was framed in the context of fighting extremism and content moderation, but has been criticized for allegedly going beyond the law and cross into illegal censorship.

While it is not unheard of for countries to ban apps that lawmakers view as dangerous, Brazil is taking the unusual step of punishing users who trying to continue using X.

As a point of comparison, although the US voted to ban TikTok, there was never any attempt to punish users who found ways to continue using it. Fining users who continue using X is a bold move, and one that could ultimately cost Brazilian lawmakers if the move angers voters enough.

In the meantime, Brazil is positioning itself as a clear outlier among democratic countries, with a move some believe is squarely in the playbook of authoritarian regimes.

Musk’s Ultimatum

Elon Musk, never one to shy away from controversy, issued a stern warning. “Unless the Brazilian government returns the illegally seized property of SpaceX, we will seek reciprocal seizure of government assets too,” Musk declared. The tweet, which has since gone viral, was accompanied by a biting remark: “Hope Lula enjoys flying commercial,” a pointed reference to Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

The nature of the property in question remains unclear, as neither Musk nor Brazilian officials have provided specific details. However, Musk’s use of the term “illegally seized” suggests that the assets involved may be related to his companies’ operations in Brazil, which have expanded in recent years as SpaceX and Tesla have increased their global footprint.

A Precedent for Action?

Musk’s tweet was in response to a post by KanekoaTheGreat, who shared news of the U.S. government’s recent seizure of a plane belonging to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The incident, which took place in the Dominican Republic, was widely reported as part of the U.S.’s ongoing pressure campaign against the Maduro regime.

Unless the Brazilian government returns the illegally seized property of 𝕏 and SpaceX, we will seek reciprocal seizure of government assets too.

Hope Lula enjoys flying commercial. https://t.co/ghZc11B4Hl

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 2, 2024

By invoking this incident, Musk appears to be drawing a parallel between the U.S. government’s actions in Venezuela and what he believes the U.S. should do in response to Brazil’s actions against his companies. This is a bold move, given the complex and often delicate nature of international relations.

The Brazilian Government’s Response

So far, the Brazilian government has remained silent on Musk’s accusations. President Lula, who has historically been critical of U.S. interference in Latin America, is unlikely to take kindly to Musk’s threats. However, with no official statement from Brasília, it is unclear how the Brazilian government plans to address the situation.

Some experts believe that Musk’s actions could backfire, potentially leading to a diplomatic rift between the U.S. and Brazil. “Musk is playing a very dangerous game,” said Maria Hernandez, a political analyst specializing in Latin American affairs. “Threatening to seize government assets is not something that can be done lightly. If the U.S. were to take such action, it would set a very troubling precedent.”

The Geopolitical Implications

Musk’s threat also raises broader questions about the role of multinational corporations in international diplomacy. Traditionally, such matters have been handled by governments, with business leaders taking a backseat. However, Musk’s direct involvement in this dispute suggests that he sees himself as more than just a CEO—he is positioning himself as a global power broker, willing to leverage his companies’ influence to achieve his goals.

“Musk’s actions blur the line between business and politics,” said Jonathan Freedman, a professor of international relations at Columbia University. “In some ways, he is acting like a nation-state, using his companies as tools to exert pressure on other governments. This is a new and potentially very disruptive development in international relations.”

What Happens Next?

As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on Washington to see how the U.S. government responds to Musk’s calls for action. Thus far, there has been no indication that the Biden administration is considering seizing Brazilian assets in retaliation for the alleged seizure of and SpaceX property. However, the fact that Musk felt emboldened enough to make such a public threat suggests that he believes he has some level of support within the U.S. government. Unfortunately, it’s not likely that Biden will go out of his way to protect free speech for Musk.

In the meantime, Musk’s threat has put additional strain on an already tense relationship between the U.S. and Brazil. While it remains to be seen whether this dispute will escalate into a full-blown crisis, one thing is certain: Elon Musk has once again shown that he is willing to go to great lengths to protect his business interests—even if it means pushing the boundaries of international law. After all, Musk is an American Citizen, and Tesla and SpaceX are critical American companies. That should be important to the United States of America.

As Hernandez aptly put it, “Musk’s latest move is a reminder that in today’s interconnected world, the actions of one man—or one company—can have far-reaching consequences.” Hopefully, in this case, that means ending the madness of censorship and the irrational violation of law by a rouge Brazilian judge.