Opt-out methods are available but “practically invisible,” Cambridge Analytica noted, citing research finding that “73 percent of X users were unaware their tweets trained Grok.”
Cambridge Analytica suggested that many users would likely be creeped out to realize that deleting X posts doesn’t delete the behavioral signal to the AI model. That means the algorithm is likely to continue targeting content at users based on information the user chose to remove.
As Cambridge Analytica sees it, the X platform’s chatbot Grok represents a “failure” that proves that “consent frameworks designed for individual users” following the Facebook scandal “don’t prevent industrial-scale behavioral exploitation.”
“Grok shows that the model survived intact—it just moved from Facebook’s API to X’s native AI infrastructure,” their post said. “The technology improved, the regulation stayed static, and the surveillance deepened beyond what Cambridge Analytica achieved.”
Other platforms like TikTok and Instagram similarly borrow the wrong lessons from the scandal, Cambridge Analytica said. But “Musk’s iteration is distinctive only in its transparency about extraction scope. “ X is especially bad, Cambridge Analytica explained, because:
“X explicitly reserves the right to train AI on your complete behavioral history. Other platforms perform equivalent extraction while maintaining ambiguity in their terms of service. X’s brazenness—Musk announcing Grok’s capabilities without pretense of user benefit—might paradoxically prevent effective regulation by making the surveillance mechanism obvious rather than hidden.”
Advocates warned the FTC that there’s no reason to give away the agency’s powers to sanction X if future violations are found, simply because Musk finds it inconvenient to comply with the order.
Giving in to Musk’s demand would mean “effectively stripping away” the FTC’s “most effective deterrence and accountability mechanisms that protect American consumers against a known repeat offender,” they warned.
Additionally, X should not be allowed to use a state court finding, determining that its terms of service adequately informed users about Twitter’s accidental ad targeting, in order to override violations found under the FTC Act, advocates said.