Tag: Elon Musk

Categories
First Amendment rights Internet controversy regulation

Hating X: The Naked Truth

DEMS, censorship, Senate, EU, X, Twitter

Why do so many U.S. Democrats, like some Europeans, want to outlaw X?

The current stage of the U.S. assault on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter takes the form of senatorial demands that X be removed from iOS and Android app stores.

Why the enmity? 

Well, under the ownership of Elon Musk, X lets people say and write stuff that Democrats dislike. Such as criticism of Democratic policies and politicians, just the kind of speech the First Amendment was drafted to protect. (Criticism of Republican, Libertarian, communist, and anarchist policies and politicians? Also protected.)

The rationalization for the proposed ban is that X’s AI software, Grok, can generate pictures of nude or nearly nude people.

The ability to generate such images is hardly unique to this particular chatbot. If X is to be banned from app stores because of the possibility that users may post generated nudes on the platform, many more social media platforms would, logically, also have to be snared by the censorship net.

Yet, reports Reclaim the Net, the letter sent to the CEOs of Apple and Google “by Senators Ron Wyden, Ben Ray Luján, and Ed Markey asked the tech giants only about X and demanded that the companies remove X from their app stores entirely.”

Unsurprisingly, X has announced that the nude-​ifying feature of Grok has been limited. I asked Grok, and it said that “there is now a taboo/​restriction on generating or editing nudes (or near-​nudes/​revealing attire) of real, existing people from photos. It will refuse prompts to digitally ‘undress’ or sexualize identifiable real individuals. Attempts often result in refusal, blurring, or error messages.”

Fixed?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs Internet controversy

Starlinking Iranian Protest

Iran, protests, Elon Musk, Starlink, technology, freedom

In June 2025, Elon Musk helped protesters in Iran by providing free access to his Starlink satellite service. The service restored a means of communicating with each other and the rest of the world that had been blocked when the Iranian government shut down the country’s Internet. 

The mullahs tend to do that when the pressure on their regime reaches a certain pitch. As has certainly happened again over the last few weeks.

Some 500 protesters have been killed so far, according to the group Human Rights Activists in Iran, as the unrest spreads.

Again, the Iranian government has shut down the country’s Internet.

Is Musk stepping in? Middle East Online has reported that Iranians with smuggled Starlink terminals, which are illegal to possess in Iran, will again have Starlink-​provided Internet access, asElon Musk’s Space X activated Starlink “as of January 9, 2026.” If the story is accurate, protesters with a terminal will again have free access to the Internet for a limited time.

In the past, Iran has complained to international bodies about Starlink’s satellites … and tried to jam their signals, but to no avail.

The few reports on the Starlink access attribute the news to Israeli Channel 14. Other recent reports, though, suggest that President Trump “will speak with SpaceX owner Elon Musk” about restoring Iran’s Internet.

Let’s just stipulate that if Starlink has not yet been made available to the protesters, it would be great if it were.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights international affairs social media

Don’t Pay, Don’t Play

Elon Musk, EU, regulations, censorship, surveillance, freedom

The European Commission is fining the X platform 120 million euros (140 million dollars), for “transparency failures”: not sharing advertising and user data with the EU and not making it easy to censor account holders.

As Reclaim the Net reports, the European Union wants platforms to open themselves to what it calls “independent research.” In practice, this means that “academics and NGOs, often with pro-​censorship political affiliations” get special access to the data, “exactly the kind of surveillance the [Digital Services Act] claims to prevent.… The EU is angry that X is not policing speech the way it wants.”

My advice to Elon Musk is to shut down X (formerly Twitter) throughout the EU. And refuse to pay the fine.

X’s departure from the EU wouldn’t need to be permanent. For the censors would then have not only X and its uncooperative CEO to contend with; suddenly, a pro‑X lobby of millions of Twitterers would be putting pressure on the censors.

The chances of unilateral surrender by the EU? Pretty high. And that’s the only kind of surrender Musk should accept.

If he agrees to even a little EU repression in return for lifting of the fine, that could lead to a total loss for the freedom-​of-​speech side; the bureaucrats, spies, and busybodies would likely take that seemingly marginal concession and relentlessly work to enlarge it.

Accept only total victory. And be ready to again leave the EU the instant the EU-​crats resume their attacks.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with NanoBanana and Firefly 

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
deficits and debt partisanship too much government

Upstart?

Elon Musk, Donald Trump, MAGA, duopoly, third party

The spectacular fallout between Donald Trump and Elon Musk over the Big Beautiful Bill in particular (but deficit spending and debt accumulation in general) promises political watchers a big, ugly brawl.*

Now, billionaire Musk appears to be serious about his proposed “third party,” the “America Party.” A name perfectly designed to ruffle Trumpian feathers. It might steal some of the thunder of “America First” and “Make America Great Again.”

The president mocks the notion, saying that third parties “have never succeeded in the United States.”

Well, that is not exactly true. For a long time, it was second parties that had problems. 

The first party, the Federalists, basically lost for a generation, finally withering away against the onslaught of that most American party of all, the Democratic-Republican. 

When the victorious party reformed under the leadership of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren to become the Democratic Party, the Whig Party emerged to counter-​act Jackson’s imperial presidency. The Whigs had some success — if with a string of presidents almost no one remembers — only to lose ground to Democrats and then a whiggish replacement, the Republican Party.

Yes, Trump’s own party was a “third” party once.

And it achieved power largely because the Democrats split into two for the 1860 election, leaving a sectional plurality candidate (Abraham Lincoln) to win the Electoral College as a Republican.

In modern times, Republicans and Democrats have ably squelched challenger parties. 

So Trump’s right — in spirit.

Now enter Andrew Yang, enthusiastic for the upstart. But how can his Universal Basic Income agenda fit with Elon’s fight against over-spending? 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Though, some wonder if the Trump-​Musk feud isn’t all an act.

PDF for printing

Ilustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
First Amendment rights international affairs Internet controversy social media

X Marks the Censor

EU, censorship, Elon Musk, X, VPN

The European Union’s censors are outraged that Elon Musk’s social media platform, Twitter‑X, flouts their demands to gag users.

So they’re gearing up to fine X more than a billion dollars. The EU will also be demanding “product changes.”

Another EU investigation reported by The New York Times “is broader and … could lead to further penalties,” but amounts to the same thing: punishing Musk’s free-​speech company for disobeying orders to prevent and punish speech.

All this is rationalized by a new EU law to compel social media platforms to police users. One would be hard put to find a clearer case of governmental censorship-​by-​delegation. It’s not even taking place behind closed doors, as was the case regarding the U.S. Government and Twitter before Mr. Musk bought the platform. 

These European censors brag about it.

X says it will do its best to “protect freedom of speech in Europe.”

If push comes to shove and EU goons do not back down, what X should do has been indicated by the smaller platforms social media platforms Gab and Kiwi Farms.

First, refuse to pay a penny of any imposed fine. 

Second, block access to X within the European Union, advising all account holders who try to log on why having an EU IP address is now a bad idea and why using a good virtual private network (VPN) to access X is now a good idea.

By disguising point of origin and encrypting traffic, a good VPN can help people living under tyrannical regimes like the European Union to evade censorship.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture

Propaganda by the Deed

TESLA, Elon Musk, donkey, Democrats, terrorism

“Five Tesla vehicles were damaged when a fire was started at a Tesla Collision Center in Las Vegas on Tuesday morning,” reports Megan Forrester for ABC News, “the latest in a wave of incidents aimed at the electric vehicle company, according to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.”

Described as a “targeted attack” by the police, these acts of outrageous property destruction are not confined to the Silver State. Occurring all over the country, these are obvious political attacks on Elon Musk, who turned against Democrats by supporting Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential run, and who has since led the DOGE effort to confront federal government “waste, fraud and abuse.”

“Violence against Tesla dealerships will be labeled domestic terrorism,” Reuters quotes President Trump, “and perpetrators will ‘go through hell.’”

As of last week, Tesla stock had plunged 50 percent since December, but “[s]hares of the automaker closed nearly 4% higher on Tuesday,” continues the Reuters report, “rebounding from the biggest one-​day fall in four-​and‑a half years the previous day, after the president appeared with Musk at the White House to select a new Tesla for his staff to use.”

“House DOGE Subcommittee Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, R‑Ga.,” USA Today told us last week, “announced that she and her committee colleagues had sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel asking for an investigation into the ‘organized’ attacks against Musk, Tesla and the DOGE effort.”

These spectacular destructions of private property are indeed terroristic. Anarchists used to use a similar approach over a century ago, calling the technique “propaganda by the deed.”

But the tide of public opinion turned against the anarchists, and I suspect it will turn strongly against today’s saboteurs as well. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture

Royal Society in Disrepute?

Elon Musk, Mars, Royal Society

Elon Musk’s membership in the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge has been imperiled. 

“Thousands of scientists are now calling for Musk’s name to be blotted out from that charter’s fine vellum pages,” explains The Atlantic. “The effort kicked off last summer, when 74 fellows (out of roughly 1,600) sent a letter to the Royal Society’s leadership, reportedly out of concern that Musk’s X posts were fomenting racial violence in the United Kingdom and could therefore bring the institution into disrepute.” 

But it’s not just the racial issue. “In November, one of the signatories, the neuropsychologist Dorothy Bishop, resigned from the Royal Society in protest of what she saw as inaction; her statement cited Musk’s derogatory posts about Anthony Fauci and the billionaire’s promotion of misinformation about vaccines.”

Of course the “scientists” are lockstep “for vaccines,” rather than express the least bit of caution about a new therapeutic (Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA injections) that was pushed out to the world with subsidy, legal immunity, and government threats — to treat a disease funded by Fauci himself.

Then another letter made the rounds, signed by more than 3,400 scientists. Elon must go!

But to what extent is it really about money? At the latest Royal Society meeting, worry was expressed that Elon’s DOGE efforts may be cutting off science funding in the United States.

Thankfully, at a recent meeting of the Society, fellows decided not to do anything too precipitous.

So the Royal Society’s members will have to eat their anger, continuing to be associated — for a while, at least — with the dread Elon Musk.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people too much government

Musk’s Alternative for Germany

Germany, Democracy, far right, extremist, Elon Musk

“Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk caused uproar after backing Germany’s far-​right party in a major newspaper ahead of key parliamentary elections in the Western European country,” ABC News tells us, “leading to the resignation of the paper’s opinion editor in protest.”

Germany’s three-​party coalition government, led by “center-​left” Chancellor Olof Scholz, fell apart when he fired the “pro-​business” party’s biggest name in the government, Finance Minister Christian Lindner.

Musk wrote a piece for Welt am Sonntag in which he expressed his support for Alternative für Deutschland, which is considered “far-​right” for opposing Die Grünen, the (“pro-​business”) Freie Demokratische Partei, and Scholz’s own Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands. “The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the last spark of hope for this country,” asserted Musk*. 

“The Tesla Motors CEO also wrote,” explains ABC, “that his investment in Germany gave him the right to comment on the country’s condition.”

Musk must mean “a right” as in manners, not in law. In a free country, anyone has a legal right to speak up and comment on government.

But what is the significance of the editor who quit? She has every right to work only with news outfits that marginalize the AfD as promoters of “anti-​democratic” ideas. Hers is a matter of strategy: shunning, marginalization — no-​debate/​no-​cooperate — are what she thinks journalists must marshal against the “far right.” 

This journalist’s political tactic mirrors Germany’s practiced politics. ABC News explains that the AfD’s polling strength doesn’t much help its candidate, Alice Weidel, to “becom[e] chancellor because other parties refuse to work with the far-​right party.”

The non-​cooperation strategy goes full anti-​democratic when election results are suppressed. In Romania, for example, elections have basically been overturned because of how “far-​right” they are.

All very anti-​democratic, these “democrats.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* To be clear, his piece was published in German, of course, and above I’m quoting the English translation.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets judiciary

Musk’s Bête Noire

Elon Musk, judge, space

Should a judge decide how much Elon Musk can be paid?

Well, when the job that Musk is doing is not a government job and a company’s internal process of determining the compensation is voluntary and aboveboard … no.

But according to a Delaware judge, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormic, who last January rescinded Tesla’s compensation package then worth $56 billion, now worth more than $100 billion, Musk is not entitled to this compensation. And she has just affirmed her ruling.

Musk says that “shareholders should control company votes, not judges.”

Tesla says: “The ruling is wrong, and we’re going to appeal.”

The appeal could take a year or more.

There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizing judges to run private companies or decide how much their most valuable personnel may be paid. The judge has no constitutional warrant. And no moral warrant. 

Not her business.

Ignoring the enormous success of Tesla, McCormic is simply deciding that Musk’s pay is way too much with respect to some arbitrary personal criterion that is irrelevant to the decisions that companies must make to attract and keep their greatest entrepreneurial talents, the ones who do the most to make it all go.

Still, maybe we should give the judge a break — I mean, just a tad?

Remember, it was Chancellor McCormic who forced Musk to go through with his Twitter purchase — which turned out to be the most consequentially favorable free-​speech/​-​free-​press event of our time. 

Sure, then too she was grinding a personal or ideological animus against the magnate.

But credit where credit’s due!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with …

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights international affairs

Musk Avoids a Trap

Elon Musk, UK, censorship, freedom

After reports that British MPs wanted to summon Elon Musk to interrogate him about the role of his company, X (Twitter), “in disseminating ‘disinformation’ during the summer riots,” I didn’t suppose that he’d be eager to rush across the pond to be grilled by enemies of freedom of speech.

One of his would-​be interrogators, Chi Onwurah, a Labour committee chairwoman, said she wanted to “cross-​examine him to see … how he reconciles his promotion of freedom of expression with his promotion of pure disinformation.”

What a mystery. How can someone champion freedom of speech and letting people say things with which others disagree? Isn’t freedom of speech only for government-​authorized speech, the kind King George III would have approved?

On X, a Malaysian commentator sought to warn Musk: “This is a trap,” tweeted Miles Cheong, “They’ll detain him at the border, demand to see the contents of his phone, and charge him under counterterrorism laws when he refuses.”

If we were concerned even a little that Mr. Musk might fall into this or a similar trap, we needn’t have been.

In reply to Cheong, Musk asserted that MPs will, rather, “be summoned to the United States of America to explain their censorship and threats to American citizens.”

In September, in response to being pointedly and publicly not invited to a British investment conference, Musk had said, “I don’t think anyone should go to the UK when they’re releasing convicted pedophiles in order to imprison people for social media posts!”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts