REVENUE & HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
How much did Elon Musk and Saudi Arabia make from X in 2025? On a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood of human rights violations between them?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, X (formerly Twitter) saw its first annual revenue growth since Elon Musk’s 2022 acquisition, though the company continued to report significant net losses.
Financial Performance (2025)
X’s Overall Revenue: The platform generated over $2 billion in the first nine months of 2025, an 18% increase year-over-year. Full-year revenue is projected to reach approximately $2.9 billion to $3.1 billion.
Net Profit/Loss: Despite rising revenue and an EBITDA of roughly $454 million in Q3, X reported a net loss of $577.4 million for that same period due to high debt servicing costs (estimated at $1.2 billion annually) and restructuring charges.
Elon Musk: While Musk’s net worth is estimated at $400 billion, X accounted for less than $7 billion of his total fortune as of late 2025.
Saudi Arabia (Kingdom Holding Company): Led by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, KHC remains X’s second-largest investor with a stake valued at approximately $1.89 billion to $2 billion. Experts noted in late 2024 and 2025 that Saudi investors are unlikely to recuperate their initial investment in the near term.
Human Rights Violations Likelihood: 4 / 5
Human rights organizations and legal filings have consistently flagged a high likelihood of complicity in rights violations due to the partnership between Musk and Saudi Arabia.
Surveillance and Repression: Saudi Arabia has used X to identify and prosecute dissidents. In a notable 2023-2025 case, a retired teacher was sentenced to death based on tweets criticizing the royal family.
Data Privacy Concerns: Lawsuits allege X (and previously Twitter) complied with excessive Saudi government data requests, potentially exposing anonymous critics.
Strategic Alliance: Musk’s AI venture, xAI, secured a deal in 2025 to expand its models in Saudi Arabia, further deepening business ties with the Kingdom despite its record on free expression.
Internal Oversight: Rights groups have criticized Musk’s “free speech absolutism” as being secondary to transactional business interests with authoritarian regimes, rating the Middle East as the worst region for workers’ and digital rights in 2025.”
SOME COUNTRIES USING X FOR SURVEILLANCE & REPRESSION
What other countries does Human Rights Watch cite as using X for surveillance and repression?
GoogleAI Mode: “In addition to Saudi Arabia, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and other international monitors have cited several countries for using X (formerly Twitter) as a tool for surveillance, propaganda, and transnational repression throughout 2025 and into 2026.
Key Countries Cited
China: HRW reports that Chinese authorities use X to track and harass dissidents in exile. In 2025, police interrogated followers of “Teacher Li,” an X-based journalist who broadcasts news from within China. The government also uses the platform for propaganda, often posting content to deny human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
Russia: Russia has been cited for using X to conduct state-backed influence campaigns. In July 2025, HRW highlighted Russia’s increasing isolation of internet users and its use of digital platforms to target political opponents and spread misinformation.
Turkey (Türkiye): Along with China and Russia, Turkey was identified in 2025 for operating thousands of state-linked accounts intended to amplify narratives favorable to the government and target dissenters.
India: In May 2025, the Indian government directed X to block numerous accounts, citing national security concerns. Human rights groups have expressed concern that such orders are frequently used to silence critics and journalists.
Rwanda: HRW has included Rwanda among the nations most active in “transnational repression,” using digital tools to monitor and threaten its diaspora worldwide.
Concerns over Platform Features (2025)
HRW specifically criticized X in late 2025 for introducing features that inadvertently aid these regimes:
“About This Account” Feature: Launched in November 2025, this feature displays a user’s country of origin and account creation date. HRW warned this could “undermine user safety” by unmasking the locations of activists or refugees who rely on anonymity to avoid state retribution.
VPN Detection: X’s 2025 development of tools to flag users connected via VPNs has been flagged as a major risk for individuals in repressive countries who use VPNs to bypass censorship and hide their identity from state surveillance.”
The Human Rights Implications of X’s “About this account”
GoogleAI Mode: “November 2025, X (formerly Twitter) began rolling out a feature titled “About this account” that includes visible warnings on user profiles if the platform detects the use of a proxy or VPN.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) and other digital privacy experts warned in late 2025 that this feature actively harms users in repressive countries by unmasking their attempts to maintain anonymity.
Key Features of X’s VPN Detection (2025–2026)
Public Profile Warnings: If X detects a VPN, it displays a message to other users on that profile stating: “Country or region may not be accurate”.
Account-Holder Alerts: Users connecting via a proxy see an internal warning: “One of our partners has indicated that you may be connecting via a proxy—such as a VPN”.
Multi-Source Tracking: The platform reportedly uses a combination of data sources, including device GPS and known VPN IP lists, to determine if a user’s displayed location is “faked”.
Human Rights Implications
Targeting of Dissidents: HRW stated these changes “risk compromising anonymity for those whose safety depends on it,” specifically citing journalists, activists, and vulnerable communities who have fled their home countries.
Aiding Transnational Repression: By flagging VPN use as “suspicious,” X makes it easier for repressive regimes to identify and single out critics who are using privacy tools to avoid state surveillance.
Lack of Safeguards: As of early 2026, HRW noted that X has not publicly stated whether it conducted a human rights impact assessment before rolling out these features, nor has it provided an option for users to hide their location entirely to protect their safety.”
THE SAFETY RISKS OF USING X IN SOME COUNTRIES
GoogleAI Mode: “In certain countries, X’s latest features—particularly the “About this account” location transparency and VPN detection—pose severe risks to the physical and digital safety of users who rely on anonymity.
Key Safety Risks
Compromised Anonymity for Dissidents: Human Rights Watch (HRW) warns that unmasking users’ locations and flagging VPN use can exacerbate safety risks for journalists, activists, and vulnerable communities who have fled their home countries to escape persecution.
Aiding Transnational Repression: By displaying a user’s country or region on their profile, X provides repressive regimes with critical information to identify and target critics residing abroad.
Digital Targets for State Surveillance: In authoritarian regimes, VPNs are often essential for evading censorship. Detecting and flagging their use on a public profile can “demonize” these critical privacy tools and signal users for state retaliation.
Inaccuracy and False Identification: Reported inaccuracies in displayed location data (e.g., listing a user in a different country due to a temporary glitch) further undermine safety by potentially misidentifying a user’s location to hostile actors.
Human Rights Concerns
Lack of Assessments: HRW notes that X has not publicly stated whether it conducted a human rights impact assessment before introducing these features, nor has it updated its privacy policy to reflect these new public disclosures.
Mandatory Disclosure: Users currently cannot opt out of the “About this account” feature, forcing them to share location data derived from phone numbers, IP addresses, and GPS data even if it puts them at risk.
“Technofascism” and Power Centralization: Critics argue these features signal a shift toward “technofascism,” where public space is controlled by unchecked power, enabling more effective state surveillance and silencing dissent.”
THE CONCERNED COUNTRIES
What countries have expressed concerns about X’s location disclosure feature?
GoogleAI Mode: “Concerns regarding X’s location disclosure and VPN detection features, introduced in late 2025, have been raised primarily by regional regulatory bodies, human rights organizations, and government officials from several democratic nations.
Key Expressed Concerns
European Union (EU): EU regulators have expressed “outrage” and are reportedly investigating X for potential violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and GDPR. In January 2026, European officials, including former Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, urged public bodies to abandon the platform entirely, citing safety concerns and the platform’s failure to address illegal content.
Ireland: In early 2026, Irish government officials accused X of showing “total disregard” for the laws of Ireland and other European states. They specifically flagged X’s AI and data practices as potentially illegal.
Brazil: Although related to broader legal disputes, Brazil’s judiciary has taken aggressive stances against the use of VPNs to circumvent platform restrictions, highlighting the geopolitical tension surrounding X’s location-based features.
International Human Rights Monitors: Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have formally stated that the feature undermines user safety globally. They argue it serves as a tool for transnational repression, specifically putting activists and journalists from repressive regimes—including those from Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela—at risk by unmasking their locations or flagging their use of privacy tools.
Specific Risks for Users in Authoritarian Regions
While no formal “concern” may be issued by the repressive governments themselves (as they often benefit from the surveillance), monitors have identified specific countries where users are most endangered by these features:
Iran & Russia: HRW and BBC Verify noted that the location tags have already been used to “unmask” and target accounts allegedly linked to these regimes, but conversely, they expose genuine dissidents who rely on VPNs to post safely.
China: The platform’s automated country labels are compared by critics to China’s own mandatory IP-based location disclosure laws, which are used to curb domestic speech.”
Transnational Repression
GoogleAI Mode: “Transnational repression (TNR) refers to the tactics foreign governments use to silence, threaten, or harm their citizens, dissidents, or diaspora members living outside their national borders. This phenomenon has grown in sophistication and scale through 2025 and into 2026, driven by digital technology and increased global migration.
Common Tactics
Authoritarian regimes employ a spectrum of physical and digital tools to reach targets abroad:
Physical Violence: This includes assassinations, kidnappings, assaults, and attempted murders.
Digital Surveillance: The use of spyware (like Pegasus), social media monitoring, hacking, and online harassment to track and intimidate critics.
Legal & Administrative Coercion: Abuse of Interpol Red Notices to facilitate unlawful arrests or deportations, and withholding consular services such as passport renewals.
Proxy Punishment: Threatening or detaining family members and associates who remain in the home country to coerce the target in exile.
Forced Rendition: Coerced or lured returns to the country of origin.
Primary Perpetrators (2025–2026)
Reports from Freedom House and international monitors identify these states as the most active in TNR:
China: Responsible for an estimated 22% to 30% of all global TNR cases, conducting the most sophisticated campaigns against Uyghurs, activists, and students abroad.
Russia: Heavily targets anti-war activists and journalists since the invasion of Ukraine.
Iran: Known for brazen kidnapping and assassination plots against critics in the U.S. and Europe.
Other Major Perpetrators: Turkey, Tajikistan, Egypt, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, and India (notably linked to the targeting of Sikh activists in Canada and the U.S.).
Recent Developments (2025–2026)
G7 Recognition: At the 2025 G7 summit in Canada, world leaders formally recognized TNR as a global threat and pledged coordinated action.
Escalation in Southeast Asia: Experts describe a “swap mart” of dissidents in 2025, where countries like Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam exchange and deport each other’s critics to bypass international oversight.
Legislative Responses: In the U.S., the Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025 was introduced to codify a definition of the crime and establish a dedicated DHS working group.
Financial Impact: Reports in early 2026 highlight that deep cuts in international human rights funding (estimated at $1.9 billion by 2026) are leaving defenders with fewer resources to combat these growing threats.”
SOME COUNTRIES ARE ADVISING USERS TO LEAVE X
Some countries are advising that users leave X?
GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, government officials and public institutions in several countries have either advised users to leave X or have themselves ceased using the platform due to concerns over its content moderation, data policies, and potential for use in surveillance.
Countries and Organizations Advising Departure from X
European Union (EU) Officials: Top EU regulators, including Values and Transparency Commissioner Věra Jourová, have repeatedly warned that X is the platform with the largest proportion of disinformation and must comply with strict rules under the Digital Services Act (DSA). While not a universal ban for all citizens, there have been calls for public bodies to abandon the platform entirely. X faces potential fines of up to 6% of its global turnover or a ban from the EU if it does not comply with these laws.
Germany: Over 60 German and Austrian academic, research, and government-affiliated organizations announced their departure from X in early 2025. The German government has been in ongoing discussions about whether to entirely delete its own official presence on the platform, citing concerns that X’s algorithms promote “agitated and polarizing” discourse.
France: A collective of over 80 French NGOs and organizations, including the French Human Rights League, officially withdrew from X in January 2025, calling the platform’s owner a “serious danger” to democratic values.
United Kingdom (UK): In January 2026, several UK Labour Members of Parliament (MPs) quit the platform amid concerns over the use of X’s Grok AI chatbot to create non-consensual sexualized images, and leaked messages showed other MPs urging the government to leave X entirely.
Switzerland: Several Swiss news portals and scientific institutes, such as the Sempach Ornithological Institute, have shut down their X accounts, citing a “denial of reality” and the platform’s increasingly harsh environment.
Brazil (Temporary Ban): In 2024, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered a temporary, nationwide suspension of X after the platform failed to comply with court orders to remove accounts and content deemed a threat to Brazilian democracy and an incitement to criminal activities.
These official recommendations and actions are primarily driven by the platform’s perceived decline in content moderation, the proliferation of disinformation and hate speech, and concerns about user safety and data privacy.”
OTHER PLATFORMS FACING SIMILAR CRITICISMS
What other social media platforms face similar criticisms?
GoogleAI Mode: “While X faces significant scrutiny, several other major social media platforms face similar criticisms regarding surveillance, data privacy, and their role in state repression as of early 2026.
- TikTok
Surveillance & Censorship: TikTok faces the most intense criticism due to its ties to ByteDance and the Chinese government. Human rights groups warn that China’s National Intelligence Law can compel the company to share user data or influence information flows for state interests.
Transnational Repression: In 2025, concerns persisted that the platform could be used to track dissidents or journalists critical of the CCP.
US Legal Battle: A law effectively banning TikTok in the U.S. was set to take effect in January 2025. While legal delays occurred throughout 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the law’s constitutionality.
- Telegram
Cooperation with Authorities: Following the 2024 arrest of its CEO, Telegram shifted its policy in 2025 to begin sharing user IP addresses and phone numbers with law enforcement in response to valid legal requests.
Data Requests Surge: In the first three months of 2025, Telegram reportedly turned over data on 22,777 users globally—a massive increase from the previous year.
Privacy Vulnerabilities: Critics note that Telegram is not end-to-end encrypted by default, making its “secret chats” feature necessary but often underused, which leaves standard messages vulnerable to state seizure.
- Meta (Facebook & Instagram)
Mass Censorship Allegations: Meta faced major backlash in 2025 for what some reports called the “largest mass censorship operation in modern history”. Internal data indicated Meta complied with 94% of takedown requests from Israel, affecting nearly 39 million posts related to the conflict since late 2023.
AI Moderation Biases: Reports in 2025 highlighted that Meta’s automated systems often suppress speech from marginalized groups (women, LGBTQ+, and religious minorities) while allowing more nuanced space for dominant groups.
Data Exploitation: Meta continues to face legal crackdowns in the EU and U.S. for its “surveillance-based business model,” which prioritizes data collection for profit over user privacy.
- Other Platforms
YouTube & LinkedIn: These platforms were cited in 2025 for “language blind spots” in their content moderation, where a lack of human moderators for certain regional languages allows harmful state propaganda or misinformation to spread unchecked.
Alternative Platforms (Parler, Truth Social): As mainstream platforms crack down on misinformation, monitors have tracked the migration of extremist groups and state proxies to these alternative spaces, which often have even weaker safety safeguards.”
THE SOLUTIONS
GoogleAI Mode: “As of 2026, international human rights organizations like Freedom House, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the United Nations have outlined comprehensive frameworks to counter digital repression and platform-enabled surveillance. These solutions are categorized into actions for governments, technology companies, and civil society.
- Solutions for Technology Platforms
To prevent being used as tools for state-sponsored surveillance and transnational repression, platforms like X are urged to adopt the following:
Mainstream End-to-End Encryption (E2EE): E2EE should be the default for all communications to ensure that even the platform cannot access user content to turn it over to governments.
Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIA): Companies should conduct and publish periodic HRIAs before launching new features (e.g., location tagging) to identify potential risks to at-risk populations.
Transparency and Resistance: Platforms should use all legal channels to challenge government data requests that violate international human rights standards. They should publicly document these requests in regular transparency reports.
Support Anonymity Tools: Platforms should actively support, rather than flag, anonymity software like VPNs and Tor to protect users in repressive environments.
- Solutions for Governments and Regulators
Democratic governments are encouraged to use legislative and diplomatic tools to curb authoritarian overreach:
Comprehensive Data Privacy Laws: Enact legislation that limits the types of data companies can collect (especially location, health, and biometric data) and gives users control over their information.
Targeted Sanctions and Export Controls: Impose travel bans, asset freezes, and export restrictions on companies and individuals that provide technology used for transnational repression or human rights abuses.
Reform Extradition and Interpol Procedures: Apply additional vetting to extradition requests and Interpol Red Notices from countries known to engage in transnational repression to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
The “Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale” Act: In the U.S., experts advocate for legislation requiring government agencies to obtain a court order before purchasing user data from third-party data brokers.
- Solutions for Civil Society and Users
Civil society groups play a critical role in documenting abuses and protecting vulnerable individuals:
Digital Hygiene Training: Invest in long-term support and training for activists, journalists, and diaspora communities to help them recognize phishing attacks and secure their digital presence.
Naming and Shaming: Publicly identify perpetrators of digital repression and the methods they use, while documenting incidents for future legal accountability.
Legal and Emergency Assistance: Programs like the International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) provide critical legal aid for individuals facing deportation or extradition due to their online activities.
The “5/5” Framework for Digital Governance
The United Nations (UNESCO) has specifically proposed five overarching principles for the governance of digital platforms as of 2026:
Human Rights Due Diligence: Platforms must identify and mitigate human rights risks across their operations.
Adherence to International Standards: Design and content moderation must align with global human rights laws.
Transparency: Platforms must be open about their algorithms, data use, and moderation policies.
Accessibility of Information: Users should have clear access to information about how their data is handled.
Accountability: Platforms must be answerable to independent regulators and relevant stakeholders.”
Digital Hygiene Training
GoogleAI: “Digital hygiene training is available through specialized non-profits, online interactive platforms, and targeted courses for high-risk groups. As of 2026, the following resources are widely recognized for providing up-to-date training on defending against surveillance and digital threats:
Self-Paced Online Guides & Toolkits
EFF Surveillance Self-Defense (SSD): The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) offers a comprehensive guide with updated 2025–2026 modules on creating security plans, avoiding phishing, and circumventing network censorship.
Security Planner: A tool by Consumer Reports (often cited alongside EFF) that helps users create a personalized digital safety plan based on their specific needs.
Digital First Aid Kit: A collaborative effort by CiviCERT and other groups that provides a self-diagnostic tool for individuals facing digital emergencies.
Interactive Courses & Training Platforms
Totem: An open-source platform by Free Press Unlimited offering free, interactive digital security courses specifically designed for journalists and activists.
Cybexer Technologies: Offers a free, 30-minute online Cyber Hygiene training course in 13 languages, providing instant feedback on your current security habits.
Meta & ICFJ Digital Security Course: A 90-minute self-paced course from the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) and Meta that teaches journalists and human rights defenders how to protect digital assets.
Knight Center for Journalism: Provides periodic free MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), such as their 2025 “Digital Security for Journalists in Times of Crisis”.
Direct Support & Hands-on Training
Access Now Digital Security Helpline: Provides 24/7 technical advice and rapid-response assistance for activists, journalists, and human rights defenders.
Amnesty International Security Lab: Offers a Digital Security Resource Hub and a forensics helpline for those who believe they have been targeted by advanced spyware.
Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH): Offers free resilience training for individuals and civil society groups facing online harassment.
Professional & Advanced Training
SANS Institute: Conducts high-level summits and training events throughout 2026, such as the Security Awareness & Culture Summit in August 2026, focusing on security education and behavior change.
Coursera & Google: Offer professional certificates like the Google Cybersecurity Certificate, which provides foundational technical training for those seeking to enter the field professionally.”
World Peace 
Leave a comment