There have been rumblings for a while that America’s richest and most annoying white supremacist, Elon Musk, really wants to get into the wireless phone business. His lobbyists have been making noise in support for broader phone unlocking rules, and there’ve been several IPO-fluffing press leaks over the last few months indicating they’re keen on building a Starlink phone.
They’ve also leaked word to Semafor, likely in part to boost Musk’s sagging and disastrous IPO, that Musk’s companies are on the hunt for spectrum allowing them to offer wireless phone service in more dense, urban markets (since Starlink LEO satellite lacks the capacity for that):
“SpaceX, which is trying to fill a hole in its airwaves crucial for a full-service wireless network, has been hunting for spectrum that works well in cities and dense areas, according to people familiar with the matter. The company is considering buying competitors to acquire the spectrum or competing at a government auction set for next year, the people said.”
There have been some rumblings that Musk Corp could try to acquire T-Mobile, which they’re already partnering with on a hybrid LEO satellite and cellular phone offering that lets you use Starlink in remote areas for calls and cellular when in more dense locations.
One of several problems for Musk is his highly-fraudulent IPO is cratering, adding additional financial pressure to the mix. Massive acquisitions, which you’d probably need to do this effectively, are costly, debt-riddled, notoriously time-consuming and resource intensive.
SpaceX’s IPO promised that Starlink would quickly jump from 10 million current subscribers to 300 million or more in very short order. That’s pretty much impossible with just Starlink (despite some delusional numbers being tossed around by Jason Calacanis and friends). Even if you acquired T-Mobile (142.6 million subscribers) it would take years and a ton of good luck to get anywhere close.
Telecom is also a massively cash-intensive business to jump into. Spectrum, tower leases, backhaul is all annoying, complicated, pricey, and time consuming to get right. Assuming 100% competency you’d be talking years before any sort of meaningful traction, by which time they could be facing less Musk-friendly regulators at the FCC.
Companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast also just inherently loathe competition, and can be quite formidable when they join forces to box out any new competitors. The highway of telecom history is littered with corpses of folks who believed they could break through the monopolistic, government-coddled logjam (Dish Network being just the latest). As is the highway of very deep-pocketed companies trying to offer their own smartphones (Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft).
You’ve also got other companies like Amazon considering similar phone networks. Musk’s companies, especially Starlink, also are notorious for refusing to have competent customer service, something they’d need to excel at to disrupt cellular and gain fast market share. And this is all while Musk continues to show signs of massive instability as he dedicates the majority of his time to being a bizarre and unhinged egomaniacal racist on his personal propaganda website.
Though Musk does have some things in his favor. Like an army of cultists who’ll praise his barely available and expensive phone service no matter how clumsy or half-completed any network build is. People in the extended Roganverse already think the costly and congested Starlink network is akin to magic, and the marketing hype surrounding a Musk phone would be utterly deafening.
That doesn’t naturally equate to success in competently challenging some of America’s biggest and most politically powerful monopolies in brick-and-mortar reality, though.
When SpaceX filed for its IPO, we went through the S-1 to point out just how far off the mark Elon Musk’s predictions about his Twitter takeover turned out to be. Indeed, the failure of Twitter as a business was so catastrophic, Musk had to hide it by merging all his Xs together: he had xAI buy X (formerly Twitter), and then had SpaceX buy xAI. But when Musk was buying Twitter and needed investors, he made bold promises about how he would succeed — promises the media and his investors treated as perfectly reasonable. He said he would take Twitter’s ad revenue from $4.5 billion in 2021 to $12 billion in 2027 (and then also many more billions in subscription revenue).
Now that SpaceX is a public company, he has to report some of that revenue, though it’s all merged and buried in footnotes. But there’s enough info in there to show that advertising revenue is way, way below what it was when he took over the site. And it’s shrinking.
In the 10-Q, all of X’s revenue is now (misleadingly) labeled “AI” revenue, but even then the reporting has to admit ad revenue took a big hit, dropping $160 million compared to the first half of 2025 (which was already way, way, way lower than when Elon took over the site), going from $870 million in 2025 to $710 million in the first half of 2026. The company tries to claim that this decrease in ad revenue is because they “transitioned to a new advertising platform which impacted ad sales for a short period of time.” Which is a curious explanation, given that on the analyst call, CFO Bret Johnsen credited that very same “overhauled” ad-tech platform for the very slight quarter-over-quarter uptick in ad revenue. The same overhaul apparently both tanked the business and rescued it, depending on which direction the number was moving.
And even the claim that the overhaul increased ad revenue is suspicious given that if you compare the 2nd quarter from last year to this year… ad revenue dropped from $426 million to $367 million, year over year. Some overhaul.
I kinda think that if your transition to a new ad platform decreases ad sales by $160 million, someone fucked up badly somewhere. Especially when it’s a nearly 20% year-over-year drop.
Let’s break all this down: In the second quarter of 2022, the last full quarter before Elon took over, Twitter brought in $1.08 billion in ad revenue. In the second quarter of 2026, X brought in $367 million. That’s $713 million a quarter, gone. Elon has wiped out two-thirds of Twitter’s ad business over the exact period in which he promised investors he’d nearly triple it.
And it’s not for lack of trying. Over the past year X has made a ton of experiments and revamps to improve the experience (though the main person in charge of all that, just left). I’d argue that the company was just rebuilding all of the stuff Elon killed after first taking over the company, but none of it has brought advertisers back.
Still, it seems like someone should be pointing out how far off the mark Elon has been. He promised twelve billion dollars in ad revenue within the next year. That’s three billion a quarter. X just did $367 million — about an eighth of the pace, and shrinking. You can talk all you want about his rockets and robots, he’s not magically going to grow ad revenue 700% in the next 18 months.
As perhaps a few Elon Musk fans may remember, he got really annoyed at Wikipedia last year and tasked his second-rate LLM, Grok, with recreating it as “Grokipedia.” Grokipedia, launched nearly a year ago, basically starts by forking Wikipedia and then having its AI “generate” more details and more stories. It’s… not very good.
And apparently, it hasn’t been updating. And it seems like almost no one noticed.
At first, we wondered whether the AI was avoiding sensitive topics. To test that possibility, we submitted an uncomplicated factual update: SpaceX has recently launched its initial public offering (IPO). Grokipedia had not added this extensively sourced, indisputable fact to the SpaceX page. We observed that other users had suggested this edit as well; their requests were also “in review,” some since the day after the June 12 IPO.
We then examined the most popular pages, reasoning that if anything moved through the queue, we would likely see it there. Because Grokipedia provides view counts on individual pages but offers no site-wide ranking leaderboard, we approximated one using the site’s own search-suggestion (typeahead) feature, which returns, for any queried word, the most-viewed pages whose titles contain it. For example, if you type “The ” into the search bar, the first two suggestions are “The Beatles” and “Alexander the Great,” both of which have over 4.7 million views. Using the 10,000 most common words in Grokipedia page titles (obtained from the 5.9 million pages listed in the site map) gave us over 300,000 pages. Like many websites, its individual pages have a steep popularity curve. High-traffic entries on topics such as Elon Musk, ChatGPT, Donald Trump, Taylor Swift, World War II, and Bitcoin draw millions of views, while millions of minor pages sit in a zero-visit long tail.
But neither popular nor unpopular pages seemed to be updating. On ChatGPT’s entry, 12 edits submitted on April 24 were approved the same day, and every edit submitted afterward—May, June, and July—remains “in review.” The same pattern holds across topics and traffic levels; the largest political entries on the site (across both parties) and a second-division football club are both stalled, which is difficult to reconcile with a content- or topic-specific explanation.
In our subsequent analysis of 34,519 pages with at least one suggested edit in our sample, containing a total of 225,496 recommended edits, we found no accepted or rejected corrections dated within the past three months.
You’d think someone would have noticed sooner.
But, as the article notes, it sure looks like the actual human users of Grokipedia quickly dwindled as well:
Across the pages examined, submissions from human users continue at a reduced volume—averaging 216per week post-April.
Other tools that monitored activity on Grokipedia apparently died much earlier:
A public feed that once showed the editing process at grokipedia.com/live—a stream that the Tow Center had scraped to assemble its dataset—stopped functioning between mid-January and early March. A Wayback Machine capture from Jan. 12 shows the feed fully operational, with a running count of approved edits, while a capture from March 5 returns an error page.
These are all signs of a project that’s basically flatlined. For all the hype Grokipedia received as the antidote to Wikipedia, it doesn’t seem to have gained any traction. And, the fact that it basically broke months ago seems to have been noticed by almost no one other than… the dozen or so people out there trying and failing to edit Grokipedia:
While more than half of all contributors suggested only a single edit, a tiny cohort of 13 power users accounts for 42.6 percent of all human edit requests (nearly 40,000 edits). The most prolific contributor submitted over 8,000 corrections across 4,000 pages.
One self-described frequent contributor reported in mid-June that the review system had been stuck for more than 50 days. That places the onset in late April, consistent with our data. He also wrote on X that someone he identified as an xAI team member had acknowledged the complaint but could not provide a status update.
For these power contributors, Grokipedia went from a platform with rapid review times to a black hole.
The article notes that Elon hasn’t mentioned the site since February — barely four months after it launched in October. That silence has now stretched on for about six months and counting.
Even worse, Grokipedia’s logging system appears to have broken as well:
A mass rewrite of the encyclopedia seems to have happened on March 14. Because user suggestions are anchored to specific text selections (“Highlighted sections”), the rewrite appears to have broken the anchors. Grokipedia’s logging system retroactively reclassified previously accepted edits as rejected, attaching the error message, “Highlighted section not found.” However, in several cases that we reviewed, the textual changes appear to have been incorporated into the articles anyway. For example, the 10 launch-week edits to the entry for the actress Prunella Scales are recorded as approved in the Tow archive; nine of the edits now display as rejected on the live site, despite their contents appearing to have been incorporated into the article.
The edit log, in other words, is not entirely stable or reliable. This is potentially confusing for users who made suggestions and might have seen their valid contribution accepted with a “rejected” message nonetheless. It is also not ideal from an auditing standpoint.
It’s entirely possible that someone at xAI (or SpaceX or wherever the checks get cut these days) will flip the server back on and get things started again, but given how much the media hyped up Grokipedia when it launched as a potential “Wikipedia killer,” shouldn’t at least some of them acknowledge what a total failure it has been?
Last week we wrote about how Elon Musk’s xAI had filed a lawsuit to attempt to block Minnesota’s anti-nudify app law. As we tried to explain, even if you (reasonably, understandably) dislike both Elon and “nudify” apps, there were real problems with the Minnesota law. In particular, it was not narrowly tailored to just target truly harmful image edits. Indeed, it wasn’t even limited to the non-consensual use of the tech. The state’s Supreme Court had already handed the Minnesota legislature a clear roadmap for drafting a law like this that would pass strict scrutiny. The legislature ignored it.
However, the lawsuit was filed just days before the law was set to go into effect, which was called out by Minnesota’s Attorney General in arguing against a temporary restraining order:
First, X.AI’s lack of diligence confirms that a TRO is unnecessary. The company waited until the last minute to sue…
And that seemed to influence Judge Donovan Frank, who denied the motion for the TRO mainly because Elon waited until the last minute to file.
The Court respectfully denies the request for a temporary restraining order before tomorrow. xAI filed the motion on July 29, 2026, nearly three months after the law was signed, and only three days before the law is set to take effect. Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate.
And, sure, it was kind of silly for Musk to wait right up until the law was set to go into effect, but that’s not all that rare with challenges to these kinds of laws. I also find the court’s suggestion that the harm isn’t immediate a bit odd, given that (as xAI had rightly pointed out) the potential liability under this law is massive: $500,000 per “access, download, or use.” That means any single use of Grok to edit an image that violates this law (which, as we discussed, goes way beyond nonconsensual sexual imagery, and could even cover someone editing a photo of themselves in a way they endorse) could lead to a huge bill for the company. And it’s now in effect, meaning in theory Minnesota’s AG, Keith Ellison, could already seek fines against the company — though there’s no indication that his office has done so yet. And while it may be politically appealing to try to enforce immediately, that may play badly before the court when there are hearings coming up in a few weeks on a preliminary injunction.
It’s also unclear if xAI actually changed anything on its end. In its filing, the company said that if the law went into effect, it would need to restrict access to certain features:
Confronted with $500,000-per-image strict liability and no safe harbor, xAI has no practical choice but to restrict Grok Imagine’s image-editing features in various ways when the statute takes effect on August 1, 2026
But the law has gone into effect, and as far as I can tell, there’s been no announcement of any changes. It’s possible such changes have been made already and just not announced. But it does come off as a bit weak to file a lawsuit on Monday saying that “if this law isn’t fixed by Saturday we’ll make big changes” and then have the law go into effect… and those changes are not publicly announced anywhere.
This ruling may not mean very much at all. The court has ordered both sides to brief a preliminary injunction over the next couple weeks, with a hearing on August 19th that can get into the actual First Amendment problems with the law. That also means xAI will likely have to explain, in those filings, whatever restrictions it has or hasn’t added to its systems.
xAI’s initial filing was not bad, but I hope they lean more heavily on the case I discussed in my last post, in which Minnesota’s Supreme Court spelled out exactly what the state’s non-consensual intimate imagery law needed to survive strict scrutiny. Because that case walks through, in great detail, the steps a (somewhat similar) law had to take to pass strict scrutiny and survive the First Amendment — even as the court acknowledged the law was punishing a form of protected speech.
There remain some oddities around this law, starting with the fact that the ACLU of Minnesota backed it in the first place — a surprising stance for the ACLU — before reversing course once Musk sued:
xAI’s criticism of the law is drawing support from some free-speech advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, which supported passage of the law in an earlier form in February but has since turned against it.
“While we believe that creating the technology to alter or ‘nudify’ photos of identifiable people is protected by the First Amendment, we also recognize that the non-consensual creation and dissemination of such material can inflict damage on people appearing in those images,” the ACLU of Minnesota said in a statement Friday.
“In engaging with lawmakers on this issue, we hoped to strike an appropriate balance between First Amendment rights and the ability of people harmed to seek remedial measures, not unlike the remedies available to people harmed by defamation. The final version of the bill does not strike that balance,” the organization said.
Seems like the sort of thing you should have worked out before supporting the law, but fine.
Also, I had mentioned in my last article that some believe the law was written so badly on purpose, to convince Musk to sue in order for Democrats to use it as a political tool and… they are certainly making political hay of it on X, where they seem to be overjoyed that they can mock Elon.
And, sure, mocking Elon is fun. But if you’re going to mock him, it should be over the things he’s actually doing that are problematic.
The issue with this law isn’t that it’s trying to deal with the issue of nudify apps. Or that it’s trying to stop Elon from doing terrible things. It’s that it did so in such a ham-fisted, damaging, obviously unconstitutional manner that bans way more than it claims, is not narrowly targeted, and pretty clearly cannot survive strict scrutiny. Minnesota had the roadmap to pass a legitimate version of this law. It chose not to do so. That Musk didn’t receive the immediate TRO due to the late filing doesn’t make the law a good law. The proper thing for Minnesota’s legislature to do would be to write a law that actually abides by the First Amendment, but perhaps that wouldn’t get them the kinds of headlines they’re getting now.
There’s been a bunch of news this week regarding Minnesota’s new law that purports to prohibit “nudification” technology, and the fact that xAI has sued to have the law blocked as unconstitutional. A few things need to be said upfront, because it’s very, very easy to just say the tech is terrible, that Elon Musk and Grok are terrible, and that of course Minnesota should ban it. But it’s also possible that, in the rush to attack very problematic apps built by very problematic people, Minnesota drafted a bad law that is ridiculously overbroad and pretty clearly unconstitutional. And… that is exactly what appears to be the case.
Let’s start with the basics: apps (mostly powered by various AI tools) that are used to produce modified imagery, especially stripping people of their clothes are… bad. They should be socially shunned. People using them to objectify or sexualize others are doing bad things, and people should judge those who use those apps accordingly. This is not a defense of those apps. Similarly, Elon Musk’s Grok and its widely promoted use of putting people (including children) in bathing suits definitely deserves social shunning as well. Norms take time to form, and the shunning here is still catching up to the technology.
But passing a badly drafted, obviously unconstitutional law does not help form those norms. Nor does it punish Elon Musk. Instead, it allows him to act like a First Amendment martyr.
It’s also worth clearing something up early, because a lot of the coverage has gotten it wrong: this is not a law about child sexual abuse material. CSAM is already quite illegal under both state and federal law, and nothing in HF 1606 is limited to images of minors. Had Minnesota drafted a law narrowly targeting AI-generated CSAM, it might have survived a constitutional challenge. That’s not what it did.
And if you want to pass a law to ban technology like this, there are rules under the First Amendment. And, in Minnesota, we even know what some of those rules are. After all, a decade ago, the state also passed a law criminalizing the dissemination of “nonconsensual private sexual images.” After some back and forth in the courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court finally blessed the law as constitutional in late 2020, but made it quite clear that the law went right up to the First Amendment line. It first noted that while the state wanted to claim there’s an entirely new category of unprotected speech (in this case, “substantial invasions of privacy”), the court refused to do so, citing the famed US v. Stevens case (about an attempt to outlaw animal “crush” videos) in which the Supreme Court made it quite clear that it wasn’t open to creating new categories of unprotected speech:
The United States Supreme Court has emphatically rejected “freewheeling” attempts “to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 472; see also Jorgenson, 946 N.W.2d at 604 (“The United States Supreme Court has been reluctant to expand these traditional categories of unprotected speech.”). It is possible, however, there are “some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected, but have not yet been specifically identified or discussed.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 472.
To successfully argue for a new unprotected category of speech, the proponent must present “persuasive evidence that a novel restriction on content is part of a long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition of proscription.” Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 792 (2011). This is a heavy burden to bear, and the Supreme Court has recently rejected creating new categories of unprotected speech for animal cruelty, Stevens, 559 U.S. at 472, depictions of excessive violence, Brown, 564 U.S. at 791–93, and false statements, Alvarez, 567 U.S. at 722–23.
In this case, we conclude that the State has failed to carry the heavy burden required to provide a basis to establish a new category of unprotected speech.
And yet, the law was still deemed constitutional, but not because it created a new category of unprotected speech, but rather because it passed strict scrutiny, in which the law is narrowly tailored to use “the least restrictive means” of addressing a compelling government interest. That is the test by which a law can still be deemed viable under the First Amendment, despite suppressing speech. In the case of the nonconsensual imagery bill, the law passed strict scrutiny because it focused very narrowly on a category of speech that is very likely to cause harm, and put in place a law that was narrowly tailored to only target that speech, and on top of that included clear exemptions for edge cases that likely wouldn’t be harmful.
Indeed, the court leaned hard on the fact that the law only reached images disseminated without consent, and only when the disseminator knew or reasonably should have known the subject expected privacy. Those two limits — consent and intent — are what kept the statute from sweeping in vast amounts of protected speech. Some quotes from the court which list out all the factors necessary to pass strict scrutiny.
First, the Legislature explicitly defined the type of image that is criminalized…. Furthermore, the image has to be “obtained or created under circumstances in which the actor knew or reasonably should have known the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Id., subd. 1(3). Images that do not clear each of these hurdles fall outside the scope of the statute.
Second, a defendant must “intentionally” disseminate the image. … This mens rea requirement means that a defendant must knowingly and voluntarily disseminate a private sexual image; negligent, accidental, or even reckless distributions are not proscribed. This specific intent requirement further narrows the statute and keeps it from “target[ing] broad categories of speech.”
Third, the statute has seven enumerated exemptions…. The statute allows for private sexual images to be distributed “in the course of seeking or receiving medical or mental health treatment.” Id., subd. 5(3). Advertisers, booksellers, and artists are protected because images “obtained in a commercial setting” for legal purposes fall outside the statute’s reach. Id., subd. 5(4). Journalists cannot be prosecuted because there are exemptions for the dissemination of private sexual images that involve matters of public interest and “exposure[s] in public.” Id., subd. 5(4)–(5).8 Educators and scientists are protected because there is an exemption for private sexual images disseminated for “legitimate scientific research or educational purposes.” Id., subd. 5(6). Accordingly, even if protected speech falls within the ambit of subdivision one and a disseminator acted with the requisite mens rea, that person may still be exempt from prosecution under these precise exceptions.
Fourth, to be prosecuted under the statute, a disseminator must act without consent…. This provision provides additional protection for commercial advertisements, certain adult films, artistic works, and other creative expression outside the statute’s scope.
Finally, this statute only encompasses private speech…. Unlike the overly broad statutes at issue in our recent decisions in In re Welfare of A.J.B. and Jorgenson, this statute covers only private sexual images and does not prohibit speech that is “at the core of protected First Amendment speech.”
It was all of that combined that allowed the law to pass strict scrutiny — something that is incredibly difficult to do. Most laws that have to clear strict scrutiny don’t. Here, this law survived with a careful roadmap from the court of how to do so.
One would think that Minnesota legislators would be aware of this ruling and the clear reasons why the law was deemed to pass strict scrutiny and then write an equivalent law with the same elements in trying to ban nudify apps.
But for reasons known only to the Minnesota legislators, they basically ignored every single one of those points.
Minnesota’s anti-nudification tech law is not limited to non-consensual content. This means, as legal commentator Kathryn Tewson noted, that if she uploaded a picture of herself and asked Grok to put her in a bikini, she could by her own hand, cause Grok to break this law. That… seems like a very problematic law.
See, as I read this law, if I uploaded a picture of myself in a sundress and said “Grok, make this a picture of me in a bikini instead,” it would be a violation of the law for Grok to do that. I don’t think that should be illegal.
And, again, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already told the state pretty much exactly how to make this law constitutional: focus on nonconsensual imagery, narrowly tailor it to just the deeply harmful content, include an intent requirement, and include clear delineated exemptions for things that should be allowed.
Minnesota legislators did none of that. Indeed, even the definition of “intimate parts” in the law borrows its definition of ‘intimate parts’ from an earlier statute, covering: “the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being” — not much of which is inherently sexual, let alone harmful. Tewson offers another example: an edit of a Taylor Swift photo that changes the texture of her fishnet stockings to look more like skin. Whatever tool made that edit just violated Minnesota law.
2. An image generated from this image of Taylor Swift performing on the Eras tour in which the texture of her legs in the modified image appears more similar to actual skin than it does to nude-fishnets-over-nude-tights:
This is, by definition, an overly broad, non-narrowly tailored law.
Another example: last year the TV show South Park did a deepfake parody of Donald Trump, showing a photorealistic version of him wandering naked through the desert, including his “intimate parts.”
Under this law, that video could violate HF 1606. That’s not narrowly tailored. That’s not dealing with intent or focused just on truly harmful content.
One lawyer I spoke to, after reading through the statute, wondered out loud whether the Minnesota legislature had deliberately drafted it in the dumbest way possible just to guarantee a successful challenge. That’s how poorly the law was drafted.
Of course, no one wants to hear that the law is badly drafted. Lots of people want to ban nudify apps and to yell about how ridiculous it is that Elon Musk has gone to court to challenge this law.
But… it’s the sort of thing he should be doing. Otherwise anyone can have Grok put themselves in a bikini and… Minnesota’s Attorney General can demand $500,000 for each such image created, even when the image was created deliberately, by the person in it, of themselves.
xAI (now a division of SpaceX) is right to challenge the law, not because nudify apps are a good thing, but because the law is terribly drafted and pretty clearly exceeds what’s allowed under the First Amendment. The complaint itself is worth a read. For one thing, it explains why xAI last week sued one of its own users for producing CSAM with Grok (which I had found perplexing at the time). It reads a lot like the company wanted a concrete example to put in this filing of how it fights back against those who use Grok in such ways (leaving out, of course, that Elon himself used the app to put himself in a bikini, thereby encouraging others to do the same).
It also explains why that complaint was focused on triggering the indemnity clause in X’s terms of service, which makes the user liable for any legal costs associated with their use of the product. What Musk is really signalling with that lawsuit is if Minnesota’s AG sues us under this law for your usage of the product, we’re going to sue you to cover our costs (which could include the $500,000 fine for any images created).
As the lawsuit notes, the law is just terribly written:
HF 1606 punishes AI platforms that allow users to alter images of real people to depict an “intimate part.” But the statute contains no knowledge, intent, or purpose requirement. It is a strict-liability statute keyed solely to whether a user succeeded in creating a covered image using the AI provider’s platform—regardless of whether the provider prohibits users from using its tool for such a purpose, regardless of how many mitigations the provider has in place, and regardless of how diligently the provider polices such conduct using its tool. There is no safe harbor for good-faith efforts of the provider of general-purpose AI creative tools to avoid harms. Liability attaches even if the depicted persons consented—or created the image themselves—and even if the image is never shared. Liability also attaches even if the image has artistic, scientific, political, satirical, educational, medical, or religious value, and (again) even if the company has deployed near-perfect, state-of-the-art technical controls to prevent the generation of nude images.
Additionally, the law’s definition of “intimate part” is exceptionally broad. Although the federal government and various states have enacted statutes that clearly define nudity for the specific context of AI-generated images, Minnesota rejected such a precise definition. Instead, it borrowed the definition of “intimate part” from a criminal sexual-contact statute. That definition was drafted for nonconsensual touching and thus covers the inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a man or woman, as well as the groin and primary genital area. HF 1606 accordingly bans ordinary depictions of men without shirts, people in shorts or swimsuits, and other body parts routinely displayed in public—far beyond what an ordinary person would consider “nudification.”
Even worse, as the lawsuit states, the bill’s “principal sponsor” admitted that the law was designed to apply to consensual imagery:
A service used by an adult to edit a photograph of him or herself or a consenting individual is covered on the same terms as a service used to create an image of an unwilling stranger. The statute’s text draws no distinction among them. And this was by design. When a staff member of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee pointed out that the Act’s “prohibition applies to consensual images,” Senator Maye Quade (the bill’s principal sponsor) explained “that is intentional.”
That is the bill’s main sponsor stating, on the record, that she deliberately chose to leave out one of the very features Minnesota’s own Supreme Court had identified as necessary for a law like this to survive constitutional scrutiny.
That is legislative malpractice.
Since the lawsuit was filed, Maye Quade and other legislators have publicly defended the bill:
“I don’t see this as a free speech issue. This does not regulate content; it does not regulate art. It regulates conduct,” Maye Quade said. “Prompts are not art, and we protect art specifically in this law. It’s pretty audacious to sue to prevent a law that protects children from being turned into child sexual abuse material.”
She’s describing a law she could have written, but didn’t.
Notice what’s missing from that defense: any explanation of why the consent and intent elements the Minnesota Supreme Court specifically identified as saving the 2016 law were left out of this one. Also, she’s just simply incorrect that the law does not regulate speech. Again, if she simply read what the Minnesota Supreme Court said about the nonconsensual intimate imagery law, it spent pages analyzing the nonconsensual imagery statute — a law covering narrower material than this one — as a content-based restriction on speech that had to pass strict scrutiny to survive.
Similarly, the law does not actually “protect art.” Its one and only exemption is if the work “requires the technical skill of a user to nudify an image or video.” That could protect some art, but not all. And it defines art only in a case where a level of skill is needed, which itself potentially creates First Amendment issues in defining what is, and what is not art. There is plenty of modern art that people regularly complain takes no “technical skill” to create.
The complaint itself includes some other examples of what would violate the law, including this (gross) AI-generated image that Trump posted of a slimmed down version of himself, some of his cabinet members, and a randomly generated woman in a bikini sitting in a gleaming blue reflecting pool. Under the law, whatever tool was used to generate that image pretty clearly violated Minnesota’s law:
In this viral snapshot—which President Trump posted publicly— President Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum all are portrayed shirtless in the Washington Mall’s reflecting pool, along with an unknown (possibly fictitious) woman.19 An “intimate part” (the breast) of at least the President, Vice President, Secretary of the Interior, and the woman are “depict[ed],” with the Secretary of State also at least arguably included as well. The President posted this image on his personal account, presumably to make light of the public controversy surrounding repairs to the reflecting pool on the National Mall.
Nudify apps are gross. Musk’s encouragement of people to use Grok to de-clothe people is gross. People who use AI tools to “nudify” people are gross. But that doesn’t mean all laws targeting such things are good laws or constitutional.
In this case, despite having clear instructions from its own Supreme Court on how to write a constitutional law, Minnesota’s legislature deliberately chose to write an unconstitutional one. And thus, this lawsuit is the proper thing for SpaceX/xAI/Musk to do.
Supporting the lawsuit is not supporting Elon or Grok or nudify apps. It’s telling every legislature in the country the same thing: if you want the law to survive, learn to draft it in ways that aren’t unconstitutional.
Last month I wrote a feature for The Verge exploring how Republicans had hijacked the Biden-era infrastructure bill to redirect billions of dollars away from next-generation fiber, and instead funnel it into the pockets of billionaires Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos — in exchange for congested, expensive, satellite broadband service they’d already planned to deploy.
The piece explored in detail how some communities, like several low-income areas of Louisiana, were all set to receive next-generation affordable fiber, before Republicans hijacked the program, redirected those funds to their top donors, then proudly declared “mission accomplished.”
While Republicans like NTIA boss Arielle Roth have tried to claim this hijacking has been a net improvement, the adjustments not only showered billionaire Trump allies with unneeded subsidies, it eliminated all the provisions in the program ensuring the resulting broadband was affordable or deployed equitably. Affordable fiber evenly deployed to everyone was, the public was informed, “woke.”
I’m going to be writing about the impact and reverberations for years.
Dems have, as per brand tradition, mostly flubbed the opportunity to highlight and message around this obvious corruption. There were a few good questions flung at Roth during a recent House telecom hearing (Rep. Troy Carter of Louisiana did a particularly good job pressing Roth), but by and large Dems haven’t capitalized on the opportunity to shame Republicans for their grift parade.
“I am not declaring that corruption was at work in this instance. I am saying that it sure looks like it,” Johnson said in an interview. “Public confidence in the bidding process has been undermined.”
His plan comes after Starlink received 99% of the state grants in a government program designed to improve rural broadband access. Johnson said the company received an estimated $110 million.
It’s not clear how far he’ll get, since the roots of the corruption extend federally to Howard Lutnick, Arielle Roth, and the NTIA. But state broadband offices also had to sign off on the grift and were tasked with doling out grant awards, so we’ll see what paper trails disclose.
Keep in mind: the money Musk and Bezos have received from this $42.5 billion grant program pales to what they could ultimately receive. As unnecessary wars, tariffs, inflation, and additional economic chaos unfolds, a lot of providers and states that planned to deploy multi-gigabit affordable fiber are expected to balk and default on their bids, opening the doors for billions more for Musk and Bezos to fill the gaps with “good enough” satellite service.
It’s worth noting that after redirecting billions to satellite, Republicans proclaimed that they’d “saved” $21 billion or so. There’s now an ongoing battle over what happens to these “non-deployment funds” Congress specifically earmarked for broadband access. There are some clear hints that Trump and friends are eager to pocket it for themselves if they think they can get away with it. Great stuff. Very populist.
As I’ve noted previously, while low-Earth orbit services like Starlink are great for folks completely off the grid (who can afford it), congestion and physics make it ill-suited to meaningfully address the lack of internet-access at scale in denser urban, suburban, or even some rural environments. It’s generally designed to be a niche gap-filling option you use after pushing fiber, cellular, and fixed wireless everywhere; Republicans are treating it like a magic bullet simply because Musk is involved.
As a flood of government-subsidized users jump on the Starlink network, existing congestion problems (see this recent study out of Penn State) are going to get worse, resulting in all sorts of annoying network management approaches (throttling of 4K video) you don’t see on higher-capacity fiber. The company has also been charging users fees of up to $1500 in high-capacity areas.
The problems with this approach will become more and more apparent to taxpayers over the next few years, at which point all the folks responsible will have moved on to other opportunistic grifts. It might be nice if Democrats aspiring for higher office kept corruption in the spotlight and remained laser-focused on accountability. It’s not like there’s a shortage of very clear targets of opportunity.
For years I’ve noted that while Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite broadband system can be very useful for people with no other options (warzones, RVs, boats, rural Americans), the network has struggled to maintain performance as it grows into more mainstream markets, resulting in not only widespread slowdowns, but also the company socking users with massive “congestion surcharges.”
These surcharges are actively designed to deter use because the network is struggling to handle the load. They started at around $100 a few years ago, then jumped to $750. And last week, Reddit users began complaining that they were automatically hit with a $1500 demand surcharge. And because Musk’s companies historically don’t invest in customer service, calling up to complain doesn’t really help:
“I have been charged 1500 dollars demand surcharge for simply verifying my address that I have subscribe to 3 years ago. I have contacted starlink customer support but it’s pretty worthless. I have been getting tossed from one agent to another agent for the past 5 days.”
Last year, a study from researchers at X-Lab quietly showed that Starlink struggles to manage the load as the network grows, making it ill-suited as serious game changer for U.S. access. So as the network scales up, Starlink will be forced to impose more and more limits and restrictions on usage to ensure that most people have an acceptable experience. The laws of physics are kind of annoying like that.
Ideally, sensible U.S. broadband policy involves pushing fiber optic cable as deeply into American communities as possible, then covering a lot of the remainder with either fixed wireless or cellular tech. Only then can low-Earth orbit satellite broadband options like Starlink (or Amazon’s Leo) act as niche options that fill in the gaps.
These technologies were never really designed to be the primary avenue for broadband delivery across the bandwidth-hungry country. They’re simply not useful in many more densely populated areas. But the Trump extended infotainment universe is convinced that Starlink is akin to some kind of magic simply because Musk’s name is involved.
So they’re redirecting billions of taxpayer dollars away from better, higher-capacity fiber options and toward Musk’s Starlink, which is only going to result in greater congestion as the network begins to strain under the heavily subsidized load. People will only start to figure this out long after Musk has pocketed billions of dollars in subsidies in exchange for Starlink service SpaceX already planned to deploy.
I’ll repeat that because it gets missed: Musk is getting billions in subsidies, which he professes to hate, in exchange for doing nothing differently. Extremely innovative.
There’s been an additional layer of stupidity created by the SpaceX IPO and its utterly bogus proclaimed valuations. The prospectus pretends that Starlink will somehow magically scale from 10 million current subscribers to more than 300 million in very short order with no headaches, but reality and the laws of physics are going to have something very different in mind.
And again (just like Tesla Solar), because Starlink customer service is largely nonexistent, folks shoveled toward Starlink by the Trump administration aren’t going to have a good time. This is all before you get to the fact that Starlink has also been criticized for harming astronomical research and the ozone layer, and is generally too expensive for the folks most in need of reliable broadband access.
That’s not to say that services like Starlink don’t have very real uses, but the company and its tech (like everything Musk touches) is being wildly misrepresented in a way that’s going to become increasingly and problematically apparent in the next few years.
Earlier this year I noted how the Trump FCC, at the direct request of wireless phone giants, destroyed popular phone unlocking rules that would have made it easier and cheaper to switch wireless carriers. The rules, applied via spectrum acquisition and merger conditions after decades of activism, required that Verizon unlock your phone within 60 days after purchase so you could easily switch to competitors.
Verizon, as I’ve long established, hates competition, and early last year immediately got to work lobbying the Trump administration to destroy the rules (falsely) claiming, without evidence, that the modest phone unlocking requirements were a boon to criminals and scammers. Since the rollback they’ve slowly been making unlocking more annoying, hoping a slowly boiled frog approach would keep it on the down low.
Enter one of Trump Corp’s other biggest constituents: Elon Musk and Space X.
I’ve already explained how the SpaceX IPO includes all sorts of fantastical claims related to Starlink (the only profitable company in the prospectus). Musk Corp insists Starlink will grow extremely quickly from 10 million current subscribers to 300 million. As I explain here that’s simply not happening, for a long list of reasons authoritarian pump and dumpers don’t actually care about.
But there’s an interesting wrinkle: to grow, Musk’s Starlink is hoping to increasingly tether Starlink to existing cellular providers. Starlink has increasingly partnered with companies like T-Mobile to extend connectivity for customers when they’re outside of the range of traditional towers.
So in a filing last month sent to the FCC, SpaceX joined a bunch of other smaller providers in pushing the FCC to adopt a new 180 day phone unlocking rule:
“…we write to urge the Commission to adopt a clear, uniform requirement that mobile devices be automatically unlocked within 180 days after activation. Automatic mobile device unlocking is essential to protecting consumer choice, promoting competition, and lowering costs in the mobile marketplace. Allowing a “lock period” of 180 days gives providers enough time to protect against the significant fraud concerns identified by the FCC and to ensure mobile devices are not exploited for criminal acts.”
So for one thing, the 180 day locked phone rule would be much worse (and far friendlier to giants like Verizon) than the 60 day lock window the Biden FCC proposed (but never actually implemented because our regulatory structures are too corrupted to function). You’d also have to doubt whether Brendan Carr, who largely supports big telecom positions across the board, would ever enforce them.
Another point of note is that the FCC’s claims that they had to destroy unlocking rules to “fight crime” are bullshit. They’ve provided zero hard evidence to support that idea. The destruction of unlocking rules was just blatant regulatory capture in service to Verizon lobbyists, using “crime” as flimsy justification.
Still, it’s interesting to see SpaceX suddenly on the other side of the table to Verizon in support of something that could, for once, actually help people.
Musk Corp appears to also have convinced three Republican Senators (Cynthia Lummis, John N. Kennedy, and Eric S. Schmitt) to send a letter to the FCC also supporting a new 180 day unlocking plan. You’ve also got people traditionally lined up against consumer rights — like former FCC Ajit Pai staffer Evan Swarztrauber — suddenly writing op-eds in favor of phone unlocking.
Swarztrauber crafts a bizarre alternate reality in his op-ed where Brendan Carr didn’t destroy popular unlocking rules, U.S. wireless is hyper cheap and competitive (despite his former boss Pai rubber stamping the Sprint-T-Mobile merger), and Republicans aren’t doing everything in their power to undermine internet access affordability. But he does make the correct point that arbitrary phone locks are anti-competitive:
“But mobile locking weakens all the pressure to reduce prices and improve service—and that’s by design. Reasonable waiting periods for phone unlocking to guard against fraud are fine—no one opposes that. But unlocking should otherwise be automatic once devices are paid off, and customers shouldn’t be forced to pay fees or jump through hoops to take their phones—their own property—to a competitor that could be saving them up to $1,000 annually.”
I think SpaceX simply wants to ensure its path into the cellular market expansion through partnership and acquisition, and knows unlocked phones lead to more competition. I think the sudden flood of Republican interest in phone unlocking comes primarily as a byproduct of SpaceX lobbying. I would not be surprised if SpaceX would consider a T-Mobile acquisition to grow very quickly and keep the valuation hype rolling down the road.
That said, I’d want to see the final, actual unlocking proposal before getting too excited. Republicans have historically opposed nearly every telecom consumer benefit policy that matters, their proposals uniformly include loopholes to ensure the biggest companies are well coddled, and it’s entirely possible that the finished proposal could have more than its share of bad ideas. Stay tuned.
Last month, SpaceX began making lobbying filings in support of phone unlocking rules making it easier to switch your phone between wireless providers. You might recall that the Biden FCC was on the cusp of installing such rules before the Trump administration, hand in hand with giant telecoms, dismantled them (Trump’s FCC will have to decide whether they love Verizon/AT&T/T-Mobile or Elon Musk more).
“The company’s president and chief operating officer, Gwynne Shotwell, told investors during a recent IPO roadshow that the group was considering launching a Starlink retail product and could build its own terrestrial US mobile network, according to four people familiar with the matter.”
To be clear, I think a lot of this is simply more bullshit to justify the insane SpaceX IPO valuation. But the fact SpaceX has lobbied for phone unlocking rules suggests there is at least some kernel of real curiosity about an actual plan.
One major problem for SpaceX and Starlink is that Starlink is already too congested to handle the traffic they currently deal with. They’re already struggling under the load of 10 million low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite users; the idea, as proposed in their IPO prospectus, that they’ll very quickly surge to more than 300 million subscribers was already the stuff of fantasy.
But when it comes to building out a cellular network to reach that goal, they simply don’t have the spectrum for this kind of thing:
“New Street Research estimates that the three US mobile network operators have a total of about 1,020MHz of spectrum, while SpaceX has just 65MHz.”
Building out telecom networks is a massive, costly, and expensive chore. Even when you own a government. Directly threatening AT&T and Verizon — some of the most politically powerful companies in the country — wouldn’t be a cake walk, even for Musk. And while Musk clearly has influence at the FCC (remember that time he got Brendan Carr to launch a fake investigation to acquire more spectrum?), turning Starlink into a full wireless/cellular/satellite carrier would be very slow and very expensive.
So if you were a logic-driven investor you’d likely and correctly view this as a costly money pit with no returns anywhere on the horizon. The only real way to make it work would be to acquire somebody like T-Mobile, which would cost billions, take years to integrate, and face all sorts of operational and political challenges — especially if the economy is going to break (further) or control of Congress shifts.
So while a Starlink jump into wireless is certainly possible, I think it’s more likely that this is just putting a toe in the water in a way that might help them extract more favorable terms from their existing cellular partners (they currently offer an “out of range” option via T-Mobile). It’s also likely more IPO fluffing by people who know U.S. journalists and investors no longer truly inhabit operational reality.
Last fall, Ezra Klein was getting a lot of attention for his book Abundance, which basically argued that America had become bureaucracy-obsessed and fallen out of love with building things. I thought it was mostly simplistic cack, downplaying or ignoring the fact that the U.S. government has become so blisteringly corrupt, it clearly no longer functions in the public interest.
As a longtime telecom beat reporter I was particularly struck by Klein’s chapter on broadband, which mostly seemed to amplify Republican attacks. One of Klein’s biggest targets was the infrastructure bill and Broadband, Equity, Deployment, and Access (BEAD) program, which was part of the 2021 infrastructure bill, and set aside $42.5 billion for improved internet access.
I could tell from reading Klein’s Abundance chapter on broadband that he didn’t spend much time talking to telecom policy experts. After Klein’s attacks made inroads on the podcast circuit (including on Jon Stewart’s) they were then picked up again by right wing media, further perpetuating the idea that BEAD was a completely useless boondoggle:
I bring it up because a little more than a year later and this BEAD program really is now a boondoggle under Trumpism, as Sean Gonsalves and I explored in a new feature over at The Verge.
Republicans, it should be noted, voted against the infrastructure bill and ARPA, but can still routinely be found taking credit for the improvements they opposed.
Last election season, Republicans ran on the idea that they’d reshape BEAD and trim the fat. Instead they’ve stripped away all oversight, eliminated any requirements that taxpayer-funded broadband be affordable or equitably deployed, and gone out of their way to redirect money away from future-proof fiber toward Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos low-Earth-orbit satellite broadband networks.
Republicans — and the Joe Rogan infotainment universe — are positively convinced that Starlink is akin to magic. So they’ve decided to throw billions of taxpayer money at Bezos and Musk in exchange for slower, more expensive, congested low-Earth orbit satellite connectivity that chips away at the ozone layer. It’s worth noting they’re being given billions for service that already exists and was already set to be deployed.
In our Verge piece, we talked to minority communities in Louisiana who were slated to get fiber upgrades, but are now being shoveled toward Starlink service (that already existed) thanks to Republican BEAD changes. They are very aware they’re now getting the short-end of the stick:
“The most frustrating part is that it was a zero dollar investment in infrastructure,” Wills told The Verge. “Nothing fundamentally changed. People with Starlink are going to just get mailed a box and many won’t be able to install it. And we still won’t have anybody really served,” leaving the community with “no growth in our economic potential.”
“No money will stay here,” he said. “No jobs will be created from this — no installation jobs, zero construction jobs, or even any small stimulus.”
Republicans are then claiming they “saved taxpayers money” by throwing money at billionaires for satellite broadband they already planned to deploy. States and the Trump administration are now bickering over these $20 billion in “non deployment funds.” Congress said this money had to be used for broadband access; but the law under Trumpism is very clearly optional. It’s a giant mess.
All of this corrupt retooling has caused endless new delays, pushing real-world deployments out by another year or two. As of this writing, the $42.5 billion program has only provided new (fixed wireless) connections to a handful of homes in Louisiana and Nebraska (the Trump administration tried to use this as a press op highlighting how amazingly successful their revamp has been).
Due to the higher costs of deployment created by stupid tariffs and pointless wars, many additional fiber deployment bids originally supposed to be funded by BEAD are likely to go into default and be cancelled, opening up the possibility of Musk and Bezos getting billions more in taxpayer subsidies. It’s expected that this whole mess will get significantly uglier later this year.
Curiously, Ezra Klein hasn’t made a peep. All the press coverage last election season about how BEAD was a boondoggle is nowhere to be found now that the program is a bigger boondoggle than ever. And it’s a bigger boondoggle than ever because the U.S. is too corrupt to function, something that needs to be addressed (and candidly acknowledged by our press) before we can even begin to sniff “abundance.”
I’ve always felt that the abundance movement was an influence campaign by affluent centrists to pre-empt genuine populist progressive reform as the response to authoritarianism. The abundance movement always struck me as Clinton-era vibes-based deregulatory corporatism with a new coat of paint; something seemingly supported by its proponents’ curiously limited attention span.
