Less than a year ago, tech billionaire Elon Musk was Britain’s star guest at a conference, with the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, playing the role of a fawning interviewer to the world’s richest man. A year on, things have changed in Britain. The Labour government, which came to power in July, has decided not to invite Musk to a mega investment summit to be held in London on October 14.

The Tesla and X boss ostensibly did not like the snub and hit back at the UK government with full force, urging the guests not to go to the UK. “I don’t think anyone should go to the UK when they’re releasing convicted paedophiles in order to imprison people for social media posts,” he said when he learnt he was not invited. 

Origin Story

It is true that many prisoners have been released recently under a government scheme to decongest overcrowded British jails. But there is no evidence to suggest that sex offenders or paedophiles were let out. Musk’s tweets have sparked controversy and raised concerns about the spread of misinformation, with the British media reminding the tech billionaire of his recent acts of “spreading disinformation” about the UK. A few weeks ago, Musk shared a baseless report that the UK was building internment camps in the Falkland Islands for rioters, though he swiftly deleted the tweet after facing backlash.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed Musk’s latest provocative comments during his recent visit to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. Dismissing them as being vastly different from the positive feedback received from investors, Starmer claimed that the latter have expressed strong interest in attending and that they praised their meeting with the UK government as the best they’ve had.

Why The Summit Is Important

The summit – in its third edition since 2021 – aims to attract significant investment to drive economic growth, a top priority for the Labour government. According to a government release, last year’s meeting generated a promise of nearly £30 billion of investment. This year, as Chancellor (finance minister) Rachel Reeves and Business and Trade Secretary (minister) Jonathan Reynolds join Starmer in showcasing the UK’s potential, the government hopes to secure an investment commitment worth around 60 billion pounds in sectors like technology, green energy and artificial intelligence (AI).

But the elephant in the room is the government’s cold shoulder to Musk. It has ignited debate about the UK’s true commitment to openness and whether it’s willing to engage with influential business leaders who are critical of the Labour government. As the government seeks to reset relations with global trading partners and promote innovation, Musk supporters and the opposition Conservative Party have raised questions about Starmer’s willingness to walk the talk. Despite the tech billionaire’s inflammatory comments, the Labour government’s decision to ignore him smacks of vindictiveness and pettiness. Musk is no ordinary man. His influence on modern business, technology, and society is undeniable. I rate him alongside the Israeli historian and thinker Yuval Noah Harari — both being the visionaries of our time, but with distinct approaches. I would like to say that while Harari focuses on the bigger picture, encouraging introspection and societal evolution, Musk actively shapes the future through groundbreaking technologies. There is no doubt that both visionaries inspire and challenge our understanding of human potential.

Musk, Agent Provocateur

The relationship between Musk and Starmer has been frosty at best since the Labour Party came to power in July. Starmer, many believe, and justifiably, is upset with the American billionaire for his unsavoury remarks on how the Labour government handled the nationwide riots in August. Following the horrific Southport stabbing that claimed the lives of three children, Musk donned the role of an agent provocateur as he unleashed a barrage of criticism against Starmer and his new government. In one of his tweets, he ominously forecast a ‘civil war’ in the UK. Musk has 193 million followers on X, which means whatever he says on the platform gets amplified across the world in seconds. There is no doubt that as violence and riots spread across the country, fueled by misinformation and far-right extremism, Musk’s misleading tweets added fuel to the fire.

The response from Labour MPs was swift and stinging. Leading voices within the party accused Musk of deliberately spreading disinformation and seeking to sow division within British society. One Labour MP described Musk’s intervention as “grossly irresponsible”, suggesting that his comments were intended to play into existing societal fractures for personal or ideological reasons.

But It’s Not Easy To Just Dismiss Musk

Starmer’s office, too, condemned Musk’s “civil war is inevitable” comment and said there was no justification for such remarks. But it’s not easy to silence Musk, who is seen in many right-wing circles as a defender of free speech. He doubled down on Starmer and posted a series of provocative tweets, even accusing the British police of being harsher on White protesters during the riots.

To Starmer’s comment on X that “We will not tolerate attacks on mosques and on Muslim communities”, Musk replied, “Shouldn’t you be concerned about attacks on ‘all’ communities?” In another post, he claimed the UK was censoring online content, and asked “Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?”

Governments And Businessmen Have Clashed Often

The clash between Musk and the UK government is not an isolated incident. Throughout history, influential industrialists and businessmen have challenged governments, often sparking tensions and drama. Indian-born British industrialists, the Hinduja brothers, were embroiled in the “Hinduja Affair” during Tony Blair’s premiership. The brothers were accused of bribing Indian officials to secure defense contracts. Blair’s government faced allegations of improperly granting the Hindujas British passports. But an investigation cleared them. However, the scandal led to the resignation of Blair’s minister, Peter Mandelson. The episode underlined the complex relationships between business, politics, and national interest.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s showdown with the Margret Thatcher government began when he acquired The Times and The Sunday Times newspapers. Murdoch’s media empire was investigated for unexplained business dealings, which eventually led him to sell The Times.

It is a widely known fact that billionaire investor George Soros has long been a thorn in the side of Hungary’s nationalist government, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Soros’s Open Society Foundation (OSF) promoted democratic values and human rights, which Orbán saw as a threat to his rule. His government launched a campaign against Soros, accusing him of promoting immigration and undermining Hungarian culture. The government also passed laws restricting NGOs, allegedly targeting OSF. Soros ultimately closed the OSF’s Budapest office, citing “unprecedented” government harassment.

Can Regulation Tame X?

Under the Online Safety Act, social media platforms are required to proactively remove illegal content, including inflammatory material, and prevent it from appearing in the first place. The UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has the power to punish non-compliant platforms with fines up to £18 million or 10% of their global annual turnover. It is believed the new act, passed last year, gives the government enough power to tame social platforms if they were found to be spreading falsehood in society.

It is reported that some Labour MPs have quietly suggested that action must be taken against Elon Musk for his inflammatory tweets during the riots in August and he should be summoned by Parliament to face questions from MPs. But there are no strong indications of that happening. Not as yet. 

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Billionaire Elon Musk’s platform X, which was formerly known as Twitter, is now valued at less than half of what he purchased it for, a year ago. Mr Musk has earlier acknowledged that he had overpaid for Twitter, which he bought for $44 billion, including $33.5 billion in equity. Now, the current value of the company is at $19 billion, almost 55 per cent less than half of what he spent on the social media platform, as per the New York Times. 

The documentation pertaining to the recent stock awards said that X would be providing the equity at a price of $45 per share, with employees able to accumulate restricted stock units over time. According to the company, employees who were issued shares under the previous management would still receive cash payments totalling $54.20 for those shares. However, it is unclear why the share price has not decreased by the same percentage as the company’s worth.

In March this year, Mr Musk told the employees at the company that he believed the company was worth $20 billion and labelled it “an inverse start-up.”

Since taking over Twitter a year ago, Mr Musk has completely redesigned both the business and the social media network. He laid off around 7,500 employees across the globe. Later, modified the content-moderation guidelines and introduced the paid verification procedure. Moreover, advertising, which is a major source of revenue for the company, saw a major drop which caused the cash flow to remain negative in August 2023 with a heavy debt load.

However, the billionaire remains optimistic towards the company’s growth strategy and transforming it into an “everything app”. In a meeting organised on the first anniversary of the acquisition, Mr Musk said, “We’re rapidly transforming the company from sort of what it was, Twitter 1.0, to the everything app with an all-inclusive feature app where you can basically do anything you want on our system. He also spoke about including new features to the microblogging site including dating service.

Although the new owner and CEO Linda Yaccarino were physically absent from the company headquarters, both showered praise on the employees for aiding with the rebranding of the company and launching new features including a revenue share program for the creators, video calls in direct messages and improved live streaming quality.

Brussels:

The European Commission said Thursday it is opening an investigation into Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, to determine if it has allowed the spread of disinformation about the conflict in the Middle East.

The Commission said it had sent a formal request for information to X in what is a first procedure launched under Brussels’ new European Digital Services Act (DSA). It comes two days after it fired off a warning letter from internal market Commissioner Thierry Breton.

In a statement, the Commission said it was responding to “indications received concerning the presumed transmission of illicit content.”

Its demand for clarification comprises a 40-page document with a raft of specific questions.

Twitter has until October 18 to respond, with a deadline of October 31 for less urgent aspects of the demand for information.

Breton, the Commission’s self-styled “digital enforcer,” told AFP that Thursday’s move is about “protecting our citizens and democracies in offering users a safe environment and reliable sources of information — including in times of crisis.”

X has defended itself against earlier claims from the European Union that it is failing to tackle disinformation around the Gaza-Israel conflict as Brussels investigates.

The firm’s CEO Linda Yaccarino wrote that the platform, formerly Twitter, had “taken action to remove or label tens of thousands of pieces of content” and removed hundreds of accounts linked to Gaza militant organisation Hamas, which attacked Israel on Saturday.

She addressed the letter, dated Wednesday, to Breton, who traded barbs with Musk on social media after accusing the platform of allowing “violent and terrorist content” to circulate.

Breton has sent similar letters of alarm to Mark Zuckerberg, boss of Facebook parent Meta, and on Thursday to TikTok and its CEO Shou Zi Chew.

In each case, Breton gave the platforms 24 hours to get back to him with details of what they are doing to crack down on “illegal content and disinformation” reportedly circulating in posts.

Breton stressed that the large online platforms are now subject to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), legislation that came in two months ago that requires them to crack down on content deemed illegal under EU law or laws of individual EU countries.

Violations of the DSA can be met with mandatory remedial measures to halt such content, or fines that could go up to six percent of a company’s global turnover, or potentially even steps to ban offending platforms from Europe.

Breton posted copies of each of his letters to his accounts on X and on an X rival called Bluesky.

X is especially fixed in Brussels’ crosshairs because Musk, who bought Twitter for $44 billion last year, has gutted its staff, including content moderators, in a bid to save money.

– Young TikTok users at risk –

Yaccarino’s response letter to Breton, reposted by the CEO on her X account, said the firm had taken down posts that involved “violent speech, manipulated media and graphic media”.

She said that more than 700 notes were added to posts in the first four days after the violence erupted in Israel, and they were seen tens of millions of times.

In his letter to TikTok, Breton stressed that its users, who are mainly young, were especially vulnerable to fake and manipulated information.

“Given that your platform is extensively used by children and teenagers, you have a particular obligation to protect them from violent content depicting hostage taking and other graphic videos which are reportedly widely circulating on your platform, without appropriate safeguards,” Breton said.

To Zuckerberg, Breton noted that Meta had made some efforts at content moderation but urged it to be “vigilant” about meeting DSA requirements in light of the current Israel-Hamas conflict.

A Meta spokesperson said in reply the company had quickly set up monitoring teams with experts speaking Hebrew and Arabic, who were working with fact checkers to curb disinformation, and that “we’ll continue this work as this conflict unfolds”.

AFP fact-checkers have found several posts on X, Facebook and TikTok promoting a fake White House document allocating $8 billion in military assistance to Israel.

And several platforms have had users passing off material from other conflicts, or even from video games, as footage from Israel or Gaza.

The EU recently rated X as the worst of any major platform for illegal online content based on a pilot analysis, and Musk has pulled out of a voluntary EU code of practice on battling disinformation.

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

New Delhi:

The government has issued notices to social media platforms X, formerly Twitter, YouTube, and Telegram to remove child sexual abuse material from their platforms in India, an official statement said on Friday. Minister of State for Electronics and IT, Rajiv Chandrasekhar said if social media intermediaries do not act swiftly, their safe harbour under section 79 of the IT Act would be withdrawn, implying that the platforms can be directly prosecuted under the applicable laws and rules even though the content may have not been uploaded by them.

“Ministry of Electronics and IT has issued notices to social media intermediaries X, YouTube, and Telegram, warning them to remove Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) from their platforms on the Indian internet.

“The notices served to these platforms emphasize the importance of prompt and permanent removal or disabling of access to any CSAM on their platforms,” the statement said.

The notices also call for the implementation of proactive measures, such as content moderation algorithms and reporting mechanisms, to prevent the dissemination of CSAM in the future.

“We have sent notices to X, YouTube, and Telegram to ensure there is no Child Sexual Abuse Material that exists on their platforms. The government is determined to build a safe and trusted internet under the IT rules.

“If they do not act swiftly, their safe harbour under section 79 of the IT Act would be withdrawn and consequences under the Indian law will follow,” Mr Chandrasekhar said.

The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, provides the legal framework for addressing pornographic content, including CSAM. Sections 66E, 67, 67A, and 67B of the IT Act impose stringent penalties and fines for the online transmission of obscene or pornographic content, the statement said. 

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

Wilmington:

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over his $44 billion takeover of social media giant Twitter, according to a Thursday court filing in which the agency sought to compel Musk to testify.

The investigation — which escalates a long-running feud between the SEC and Musk — concerns whether Musk broke federal securities laws in 2022 when he bought stock in Twitter, which Musk renamed X, as well as statements and SEC filings he made in relation to the deal.

The SEC said it subpoenaed Musk in May 2023 requiring him to provide testimony at the SEC’s San Francisco office, and that Musk had agreed to appear on Sept. 15. But then two days beforehand Musk raised “several spurious objections” and told the SEC he would not appear, the SEC said. Musk also refused to SEC proposals to conduct the deposition in Texas in October or November.

Among his objections was that the SEC was trying to “harass” him and that his counsel needed time to review potentially relevant material contained in a biography of Musk published last month, the SEC said.

According to the filing, Musk has given the SEC documents relating to the probe and has previously provided testimony in July last year via video conference.

“The SEC has already taken Mr. Musk’s testimony multiple times in this misguided investigation – enough is enough,” said a statement from Alex Spiro, an attorney for Musk.

In a press release, the SEC said it was seeking “Musk’s testimony to obtain information not already in the SEC’s possession that is relevant to its legitimate and lawful investigation.” An SEC spokesperson declined to comment further.

Musk acquired Twitter after initially building a large minority stake in the social media platform, which he first disclosed in April 2022. Musk was late with the disclosure filing and initially indicated that he planned to be a passive stakeholder, meaning he did not plan to take over Twitter or influence its management decisions.

Days later, Musk accepted and then turned down a board seat at Twitter. In late April, he announced plans to buy the company for $44 billion but subsequently tried to get out of the deal, alleging Twitter was not disclosing the full extent of bot activity on its platform.

Faced with a trial that sought to compel him to complete the deal, Musk closed his acquisition of Twitter in late October 2022.

Musk-SEC Feud

Thursday’s filing is the latest brushup between Musk and the SEC which have been feuding since Musk’s 2018 tweet that he planned to take his electric carmaker Tesla private and had funding secured. Since then, Musk has repeatedly denigrated the SEC, which has opened multiple probes into Musk over the years.

“A comprehensive overhaul of these agencies is sorely needed, along with a commission to take punitive action against those individuals who have abused their regulatory power for personal and political gains,” Musk said in a post on X.

Howard Fischer, a partner at law firm Moses & Singer and former SEC official, said Musk’s refusal to appear at the September testimony was extraordinary. “I have never heard of a senior executive who has positions at public companies ever not showing up.”

Thursday’s lawsuit adds to Musk’s legal woes. Reuters previously reported the Justice Department is investigating Tesla over self-driving claims. Federal prosecutors in New York have also opened an investigation related to Musk’s corporate perks and claims related to vehicle driving range, a source with knowledge of the probe said.

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

San Francisco:

Elon Musk’s X Corp, facing its own legal claims over unpaid rent, has sued a financial services company to recoup more than $713,500 in allegedly past due rent and other fees stemming from a sublease agreement for San Francisco office space.

X, formerly known as Twitter, sued Atlas Exploration in San Francisco Superior Court on Thursday in a complaint alleging breach of contract.

Atlas, formerly Point Up Inc, markets itself as “an invite-only charge card” that gives members access to exclusive dining and travel.

Atlas and X entered a sublease agreement for space at 650 California Street in San Francisco’s financial district in April 2021, the lawsuit said. The complaint said Atlas sought last year to terminate the sublease early.

X said Atlas owes it more than $340,263 for September to November rent from last year. X also accused Atlas of failing to pay any of its early-termination fee.

An attorney who has represented Atlas in the dispute, Kevin Hill, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

Hill said in a letter to X in April the company was unfairly demanding rent for certain months last year after Atlas had already made payments on its new office space.

X has faced an array of legal actions over unpaid rent and other invoices following Musk’s $44 billion buyout last October.

In one case, the owner of X’s main office at 1355 Market Street in San Francisco sued X for more than $3.1 million in unpaid rent. X is disputing the claims in court.

Britain’s Crown Estate, which manages the property portfolio belonging to the monarchy, in January filed claims against X over alleged unpaid rent on its London headquarters.

Separately, X faces myriad employee lawsuits challenging terminations, unpaid severance and other benefits.

A lawyer for X, Jonathan Hawk, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. A representative from X had no immediate comment.

The case is X Corp v Atlas Exploration Inc, San Francisco Superior Court, No. CGC-23-609391.

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

New Delhi:

Social media platform X’s head of policy for India and South Asia, Samiran Gupta, has resigned, two sources said, a top departure that comes ahead of India elections and as the company fights a court battle with New Delhi over content removal. Mr Gupta was the most senior India employee for X, formerly known as Twitter, and responsible for “key content-related policy issues” and “defending Twitter’s position with new policy developments and support in-country sales organization,” according to his LinkedIn profile.

Mr Gupta, who was designated as X’s Head of Global Government Affairs for India and South Asia, declined to comment to Reuters. X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr Gupta’s tenure at X ended in September, according to his LinkedIn profile, which said he “enabled transition leadership for Twitter post acquisition by Elon Musk led X-Corp.”

He had joined the company in February, 2022, eight months before Mr Musk completed his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter Inc.

X counts India as a key market, with around 27 million users. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other government officials are regular users of the platform.

There are roughly 15 X employees in functions like compliance and engineering in India, said one of the sources, but Mr Gupta was the only executive engaging with the government and political parties.

Interaction between X and government and party officials would intensify typically during the run up to polls, and a national election is due to take place in India next year.

X is appealing against an Indian court ruling that it had failed to comply with government orders to remove certain content, arguing it could embolden New Delhi to block more content and broaden the scope for censorship.

India in September told a court X is a “habitual non-compliant platform” and for years has not followed many orders to remove content, undermining the government’s role.

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

 US government says Elon Musk should not be immune to testifying about X Corp. (File)
| Photo Credit: REUTERS

The US government says the former Twitter’s request to end oversight of its data privacy and security practices is “meritless” and owner Elon Musk should not be immune to testifying about the company since he has “first-hand knowledge” of the conduct being investigated.

This includes decisions he made since acquiring the company — including mass layoffs, hasty product launches and an overall “chaotic environment” — that could be in violation of a government order limiting its privacy and security practices.

The company now called X Corp. had filed a motion in July for a protective order that would prevent Musk from having to testify about the company — and for relief from its 2022 consent order with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

In a Monday filing on behalf of the FTC, the US Department of Justice said that in seeking to end the FTC’s order, X merely “complains the FTC asked too many questions after Elon Musk acquired the company”.

(For top technology news of the day, subscribe to our tech newsletter Today’s Cache)

But the FTC was asking questions, according to the filing, because of “sudden, radical changes at the company” after Musk took over. Within weeks, half of Twitter’s employees were terminated or resigned, “including key executives in privacy, data security, and compliance roles”.

There were also “alarming site outages, product malfunctions, and issues with data access controls,” the filing says — so the FTC had “every reason to seek information” about whether the company was still complying with the order.

The FTC has been watching the company for years since Twitter agreed to a 2011 consent order alleging serious data security lapses. But the agency’s concerns spiked with the tumult that followed Elon Musk’s October 27 takeover of the company.

In March it was disclosed that the FTC was investigating Musk’s mass layoffs at Twitter and trying to obtain his internal communications as part of ongoing oversight of the social media company’s privacy and cybersecurity practices, according to documents described in a congressional report.

Twitter paid a USD 150 million penalty in May 2022, about five months before Musk’s takeover, for violating the 2011 consent order. An updated version established new procedures requiring the company to implement an enhanced privacy-protection program as well as beef up information security. The company’s July filing seeks relief from the consent order, saying that the FTC’s investigation has “spiralled out of control”.

But the government’s filing on Monday said the FTC was requesting information because it wanted to see if the company was properly protecting user data during its transformation from Twitter into X under Musk’s rule. The FTC heard from five former X employees during its investigation, who “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 consent order.

For instance, 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 organisation” because “the manner in which Elon was requesting us to grant access to third parties that had not undergone our regular vetting process struck” Sayler as “having some degree of disregard for the overall sensitivity and security at that level of access”, according to the filing.

In another example from the filing, Musk “insisted on launching the new Twitter Blue user verification service on an accelerated basis, despite staffing limitations”.

The Tesla CEO, according to another former employee’s 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 the service up”.

Representatives for X did not immediately respond to a message for comment on Tuesday.