Musk Removes Giant, Flashing X Sign after Furore

Workers install lighting on an "X" sign atop the downtown San Francisco building that housed what was formally known as Twitter, now rebranded X by owner Elon Musk, Friday, July 28, 2023. (AP)
Workers install lighting on an "X" sign atop the downtown San Francisco building that housed what was formally known as Twitter, now rebranded X by owner Elon Musk, Friday, July 28, 2023. (AP)
TT

Musk Removes Giant, Flashing X Sign after Furore

Workers install lighting on an "X" sign atop the downtown San Francisco building that housed what was formally known as Twitter, now rebranded X by owner Elon Musk, Friday, July 28, 2023. (AP)
Workers install lighting on an "X" sign atop the downtown San Francisco building that housed what was formally known as Twitter, now rebranded X by owner Elon Musk, Friday, July 28, 2023. (AP)

The company formerly known as Twitter removed a towering, blinking X from atop its San Francisco headquarters Monday after the rebranded tech firm tangled with city officials over the controversial sign.

The X, installed on the roof of the company's downtown office last week, was part of owner Elon Musk's bid to rebrand the troubled social media giant to the 24th letter of the alphabet, AFP said.

But local residents had complained about the brilliant flashing lights emitting from the sign at night. Some also complained about safety, suggesting the sign -- which had loomed over the building's edge -- did not appear securely anchored to the roof.

San Francisco's Department of Building Inspection and City Planning received 24 complaints about the sign, including concerns about its "structural safety and illumination," agency communications director Patrick Hannan told AFP.

"This morning, building inspectors observed the structure being dismantled," Hannan said.

The owner of the property where X is renting offices will have to pay the cost of permits to install and remove the sign, as well as the cost of the city's investigation, according to Hannan.

A building inspector following up on a complaint first went to the tech firm's headquarters on Friday -- but was not allowed onto the roof to check the sign, according to the complaint posted on a city website.

Instead, an X representative told the inspector that the structure was "a temporary lighted sign for an event," the complaint showed.

A second attempt by an inspector to check the sign was also rebuffed on Saturday, according to the city.

The city sent X a notice of violation warning that it needed proper permits for the sign.

When contacted by AFP about the complaint, X replied with an automated message saying it would respond "soon."

Backlash
Musk has brushed off the backlash to the sign and to the rebrand in general, responding with a laughing emoji to one X user's post about the city being at odds with him over the new sign.

The billionaire killed off Twitter's globally recognizable bird logo early last week as he rebranded the company he hopes to turn into a super-app inspired by China's WeChat, which would function as a social media platform and also offer messaging and payments.

Since Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion last October, the platform's advertising business has collapsed as marketers soured on Musk's management style and mass firings at the company that gutted content moderation.

In response, he has moved toward building a subscriber base and pay model in a search for new revenue.

Workers last week were stopped while removing the Twitter sign and blue bird logo from the headquarters due to a lack of proper permits. It was also gone Monday.

A group of former Twitter employees who lost their jobs when Musk took over said in a federal civil suit filed against the company in May that the billionaire made it clear that he did not intend to pay expenses such as rent or severance packages.

An attorney for Musk was overheard crudely insulting San Francisco at one point, contending it was unreasonable for landlords to expect Twitter to pay rent given living conditions, the suit maintained.



A Social Media Ban for Under-16s Passes the Australian Senate and Will Soon be a World-first Law

A teenager uses his mobile phone to access social media, Sydney, Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2024. (Dean Lewins/AAP Image VIA AP)
A teenager uses his mobile phone to access social media, Sydney, Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2024. (Dean Lewins/AAP Image VIA AP)
TT

A Social Media Ban for Under-16s Passes the Australian Senate and Will Soon be a World-first Law

A teenager uses his mobile phone to access social media, Sydney, Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2024. (Dean Lewins/AAP Image VIA AP)
A teenager uses his mobile phone to access social media, Sydney, Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2024. (Dean Lewins/AAP Image VIA AP)

A social media ban for children under 16 passed the Australian Senate Thursday and will soon become a world-first law.

The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts, The AP reported.

The Senate passed the bill 34 votes to 19. The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the legislation 102 votes to 13.

The House has yet to endorse opposition amendments made in the Senate. But that is a formality since the government has already agreed they will pass.

The platforms will have one year to work out how they could implement the ban before penalties are enforced.

The amendments bolster privacy protections. Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued identity documents including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through a government system.

The House is scheduled to pass the amendments on Friday. Critics of the legislation fear that banning young children from social media will impact the privacy of users who must establish they are older than 16.

While the major parties support the ban, many child welfare and mental health advocates are concerned about unintended consequences.

Sen. David Shoebridge, from the minority Greens party, said mental health experts agreed that the ban could dangerously isolate many children who used social media to find support.

“This policy will hurt vulnerable young people the most, especially in regional communities and especially the LGBTQI community, by cutting them off,” Shoebridge told the Senate.

Opposition Sen. Maria Kovacic said the bill was not radical but necessary.

“The core focus of this legislation is simple: It demands that social media companies take reasonable steps to identify and remove underage users from their platforms,” Kovacic told the Senate.

“This is a responsibility these companies should have been fulfilling long ago, but for too long they have shirked these responsibilities in favor of profit,” she added.

Online safety campaigner Sonya Ryan, whose 15-year-old daughter Carly was murdered by a 50-year-old pedophile who pretended to be a teenager online, described the Senate vote as a “monumental moment in protecting our children from horrendous harms online.”

“It’s too late for my daughter, Carly, and the many other children who have suffered terribly and those who have lost their lives in Australia, but let us stand together on their behalf and embrace this together,” she told the AP in an email.

Wayne Holdsworth, whose teenage son Mac took his own life after falling victim to an online sextortion scam, had advocated for the age restriction and took pride in its passage.

“I have always been a proud Australian, but for me subsequent to today’s Senate decision, I am bursting with pride,” Holdsworth told the AP in an email.