The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: spacex
Elon Musk

Elon Musk's Ongoing Twitter Tantrum Targets National Public Radio

We don't know why tantruming billionaire child Elon Musk is engaged in a one-sided war against NPR, but he doesn't show signs of stopping.

Last week Musk's Twitter slapped a "state-affiliated media" label on NPR's Twitter account, despite NPR not being a candidate for such a label according to Twitter's own definition of the term, and despite Twitter's own Help Center specifically singling out NPR as an example of a corporation that wouldn't meet the definition. NPR is not "state-affiliated."

Somebody inside the now-skeletal company got embarrassed when news pieces about their move pointed that out, after which Twitter deleted the use of NPR as its Help Center example rather than admitting they weren't following their own rules. NPR itself expressed outrage that Elon was falsely lumping it in with the foreign state-sponsored propaganda outlets that the Twitter label is meant to warn users about and announced that they'd no longer be posting on Elon's site until the label was removed.

Faced with perhaps more public mockery than he expected, now Musk has flinched again. He's still lying his ass off, though. Now Musk's engineers have changed NPR's designation to read "Government Funded Media," which is ... still not accurately correct. And now Musk is claiming that he'll be applying it to more media outlets than just NPR, though apparently he hasn't worked it out enough to figure out how not to be wrong about it.

The catch here remains the same: NPR is not "state-affiliated." It's also not "government funded." NPR is a nonprofit corporation that gets somewhere around 1% of its funding from government grants and relies on donations, grants, and station dues for the rest. As Republican politicians have groused repeatedly over the years, the federal government has no ability to dictate NPR's news coverage.

What Musk here is attempting to do is to find a designation he can tar insufficiently friendly media outlets with as a way of discrediting them when they (repeatedly) report on his pandemic misinformation, his business flubs, or his fawning over internet white nationalists. Since Musk is a habitual liar in the best of times we can expect he's going to go through a few more iterations of these labels before he settles on one that the lawyers think they can defend. Perhaps he'll settle for a "Was Once Mean To Elon" label for his fanboys and then call this done?

The other catch here, though, is that Elon Internet Whiner Musk is the poster child of "government funded." Neither Tesla nor SpaceX would even exist right now if it were not for Musk sucking up government funds by the billions; his companies had guzzled nearly $5 billion in government money as of 2015, and both companies were saved from bankruptcy directly because of government credits or government contracts.

If there's anyone else in the world whose wealth is more tied to getting government cash than Elon's is, that person isn't coming to mind.

For Musk, though, this isn't about accuracy. It's never about accuracy. Elon Musk is mad at NPR for NPR's coverage of his own antics, and Musk purchased Twitter specifically so he would have the tools to get back at journalists and media outlets who he's felt disrespected by. He's a big whining baby and he's going to keep having this tantrum until he tires himself out and his handlers put him down for a nap.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

In Feud With Apple, Elon Musk Will Only Harm Himself

In Feud With Apple, Elon Musk Will Only Harm Himself

What do I care about more? Do I care about my iPhone, my iPad, my MacBook and the two Mac desktops — or do I care more about the feed on my Twitter app? Oh, and I forgot to mention my Apple Watch.

Guess the answer.

I used to greatly admire Twitter owner Elon Musk for his championing of electric vehicles. That Tesla (and the rocket company SpaceX) made him the world's richest man was fine with me. No problem here with billionaires who build great things and pay their taxes.

But Musk can't possibly think that he can win his fight against Apple, the world's most valuable company. Even if that were a possibility, he's not going about it the right way. Of course, that's assuming his motive is to indeed win and not just Gorilla-glue his name to the daily headlines.

Let's accept everyone's arguments at face value. In the name of free speech, Musk is opening Twitter to unmoderated bigots, vaccine deniers and other assorted creeps. That's his right. Twitter is his toy to play with or break.

Apple, on the other hand, wants to keep the worst nastiness out of its users' faces. It has thus banned from its App Store sites that do not meet its standards for moderating content. That is Apple's right.

And it's the right of Apple and other big corporations to not advertise on the burning dumpster Twitter is becoming. Apple also has the right to demand a 30% cut from software developers wanting to put their wares on Apple devices — just as Twitter can charge users $8 a month for blue checkmarks.

At the end of the day, what is Musk's weapon, really? A social media app?

"This is a battle for the future of civilization," Musk tweeted grandiosely. "If free speech is lost even in America, tyranny is all that lies ahead."

To which former Rep. Adam Kinzinger tweeted, "It's twitter man. Not WW3."

Musk overpaid $44 billion to buy Twitter. Apple, on the other hand, is worth $2.3 trillion. (The oil giant Saudi Aramco has a market value of $1.9 trillion.)

Investors, meanwhile, have limited patience with CEOs who get distracted from their core business and come off as jerks. Who is taking care of Tesla? And aren't Musk's provocations turning off would-be buyers of his electric cars?

This has been a tough year for many stocks, but for Tesla's, it's been miserable. As of late November, Tesla shares have lost nearly 50 percent of their value. The 2022 return on Apple shares (which includes dividends) was down only 18.31 percent.

Dan Ives, a tech analyst, has called Musk's Twitter fight with Apple "the gift that keeps on giving for the Tesla 'bears,'" investors who bet on the stock price going down.

Apple world tends to be a gentle place. Its inhabitants undoubtedly like the company's moves to protect user privacy. Apple also wins applause for banning misinformation about COVID-19 — something Twitter has just said it would now allow.

By the way, it's simply not true that only liberal social media gets the Apple green light. Anyone who has used Apple products to follow political opinion knows that conservative views are easy to find.

It would appear that all the money in the world couldn't buy Musk a sense of humor. And that's what he's going to need if the day comes that Apple drops Twitter from the App Store and the one billion iPhone owners start forgetting that Twitter ever existed.

Apple sells real stuff, things that need to be recharged. Twitter does not. It's just an app that the delete button can make disappear. Musk really should have stuck with cars.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Twitter Counsel Fears Musk Actions Risk 'Billions' In Federal Penalties

Twitter Counsel Fears Musk Actions Risk 'Billions' In Federal Penalties

Twitter employees have been subjected to a variety of chaos and stress since late October, when Tesla CEO Elon Musk acquired the social media giant and immediately began firing and laying off employees. Musk has fired Twitter’s entire board of directors and some of its top executives in addition to making major cuts to its content moderation staff.

On top of all that, a company attorney is, according to The Verge, warning that Musk is putting Twitter at risk of facing billions of dollars in fines from the federal government.

In an article published on November 10, The Verge’s Alex Heath reports, “Twitter’s privacy and security teams are in turmoil after Elon Musk’s changes to the service bypassed its standard data governance processes. Now, a company lawyer is encouraging employees to seek whistleblower protection ‘if you feel uncomfortable about anything you’re being asked to do.’ The company’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran, chief information security officer Lea Kissner, and chief compliance officer Marianne Fogarty have all resigned, according to two employees and an internal message seen by The Verge.”

Kissner, according to Heath, “confirmed their departure in a tweet on Thursday,” November 10.

In a biting note posted on Twitter’s Slack page and visible to other employees, Heath reports, a Twitter attorney — whose identity The Verge didn’t want to reveal — wrote, “Elon has shown that his only priority with Twitter users is how to monetize them. I do not believe he cares about the human rights activists. the dissidents, our users in un-monetizable regions, and all the other users who have made Twitter the global town square you have all spent so long building, and we all love.”

Heath notes that in May 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “reached a settlement with Twitter” after the company had been “caught using personal user info to target ads.”

Heath reports, “If Twitter doesn’t comply with that agreement, the FTC can issue fines reaching into the billions of dollars, according to the lawyer’s note to employees…. The note goes on to say that its author, who The Verge knows the identity of but is choosing not to disclose, has ‘heard Alex Spiro (current head of Legal) say that Elon is willing to take on a huge amount of risk in relation to this company and its users, because ‘Elon puts rockets into space, he’s not afraid of the FTC.’”

Another change Musk is instituting at Twitter, according to Business Insider, is an end to letting employees work remotely.

On November 10, according to Business Insider reporters Kate Duffy and Kali Hays, Musk made the announcement in an e-mail. Hw told employees — the ones who, so far, haven’t been fired or laid off — “The road ahead is arduous and will require intense work to succeed.”

Duffy and Hays report that Musk opened the e-mail by saying that there was “no way to sugarcoat the message” about how the economic climate would affect Twitter.

“Days after Musk finalized his deal with Twitter, employees noticed the company's ‘days of rest,’ implemented by the Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, had been removed from their calendars, people familiar with the matter told Insider,” Duffy and Hays note. “While Dorsey encouraged staff to avoid burnout, employees of Musk's other companies, such as SpaceX and Tesla, are known to work long hours. The change in pace at Twitter became apparent after a photo was posted on the social media platform showing a manager sleeping on the floor at its San Francisco headquarters last week.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Court Blocks U.S. Plan To Buy Russian Rocket Engines

Court Blocks U.S. Plan To Buy Russian Rocket Engines

Washington (AFP) – A U.S. court has blocked a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing from buying Russian-made rocket engines, after private rocket operator SpaceX filed a lawsuit protesting the contract.

The preliminary injunction against the deal between the U.S. Air Force and United Launch Systems was issued late Wednesday by Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The ruling blocks ULS, its parent company United Launch Alliance, and the Air Force from making payments to any entity subject to the control of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

That includes NPO Energomash, the Russian state-owned company that makes the rocket engines that power ULA launches of U.S. government and national security satellites.

Rogozin heads Russia’s defense industry and space program, and is on a U.S. sanctions list over the crisis in Ukraine.

SpaceX on April 28 filed a legal protest against the contract, which guaranteed the purchase of 36 rocket cores from ULA to be used in national security launches, on the basis that it was struck without any competition from other companies.

The deal was part of the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program, which is the fourth largest program in the defense budget at a cost of $70 billion, according to court documents.

However, it was unclear how much money was at stake in the ruling. The injunction would not apply to any purchase orders placed or money paid prior to April 30, the court documents said.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk told reporters last week that the Air Force’s awarding of a contract without allowing other companies to compete was “not right” and raised the possibility that the deal could be a violation of sanctions.

The injunction did not address the issue Musk raised of fair competition, and could be lifted if the U.S. Treasury, Commerce Department or State Department reviews the deal and finds it does not violate sanctions.

On Tuesday, Rogozin lashed out at U.S. sanctions on high-tech exports to Russia and said the move could endanger U.S. astronauts at the International Space Station.

The world’s astronauts rely on Russian rockets for transport to the orbiting outpost, paying tens of million per seat ever since the retirement of the U.S. space shuttle in 2011.

“If their aim is to deliver a blow to Russia’s rocket-building sector, then by default, they would be exposing their astronauts on the ISS,” Rogozin said, according to the Interfax news agency.

“Sanctions are always a boomerang which come back and painfully hit those who launched them,” added Rogozin on a visit to Crimea, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in March.

California-based SpaceX was the first private company to reach the ISS with its own unmanned cargo capsule in 2012, and is aiming to have a crew-carrying spaceship ready by 2017.

©afp.com / Patrick H. Corkery