Hackers are trying to steal money from X users — don’t be one of them
Unless you’re a frequent X user, you may have missed that Elon Musk launched X Money, the financial services platform that he originally envisioned for the X.com brand when he purchased the domain in 1999. Shortly after its debut, X Money users came under attack, with hackers looking to steal everything.
X Money is a new financial platform under Musk’s growing brand, X Corp. While it isn’t technically a bank, it offers many financial services that you would find at any other financial institution. Some of these include high-yield accounts with up to 6.00% APY — high above the national average of 0.62% APY — the X Card debit card that offers 3% cash back on eligible purchases, and early payday support for direct deposit checks.
The goal was to reset user passwords to access X accounts and the money inside.
The X Money website also touts “powerful security,” which unfortunately was already put to the test by bad actors looking to take advantage of X Money’s brand-new customers.
The mess began when some users received unsolicited password change requests for their X accounts. The goal was to reset user passwords to access those accounts and the money inside. According to a response from Grok, hackers simply spammed the password reset feature by typing in users’ public X usernames and then clicking “forgot password?” in hopes of taking control.
X product engineer Mridul Singhai acknowledged the issue and quickly assuaged concerns that a broader attack was under way. In a post, he said, “We are actively investigating the issue and, so far, have found no evidence of any breaches. We apologize for the multiple emails and appreciate your patience as we work to resolve this.”
In other words, the attack doesn’t appear to be the result of a system leak, hack, or compromised data. Scammers are simply targeting users who are suspected to have X Money accounts and weaponizing the password reset feature to gain entry.
As for how attackers knew which accounts to pursue, there currently isn’t a badge or identifying marker to denote an X Money customer from a regular X user. However, since X recently moved its creator payment program from Stripe to X Money, any account with a “Subscribe” button is a likely target.
RELATED: 200,000 Chinese bots are hiding on X — built to control what you think
Whether you’re an X Money account holder or a typical X.com user looking to shore up security on your profile, it’s actually very easy to keep hackers and would-be criminals out of your business. X offers several security features that you should enable now, even if you think you’re not at risk.
Open the X app, tap your profile picture in the top left corner, and then choose “Settings and privacy” at the bottom. On the next page, tap “Security and account access,” followed by "Security." On this last page, you’ll see several options. I recommend setting up Passkeys at the very least, but enabling all of these can help.
Two-factor authentication requires the person logging in — whether that’s you or a potential hacker — to have access to another approved form of verification before he can access your account. The other form can be a text message sent directly to your phone, a temporary code sent to an authentication app, or even a physical security key that must be inserted into your device to prove you are you. Personally, the authentication app option is my favorite, but feel free to choose which works best.
Password reset protection requires a person to know your account email address — not just your username — to reset your password. Since your email address is never openly shared on your profile, this should be information that only you possess, helping to keep you safer.
Finally, Passkeys add a biometric layer to the login process. These allow you to bypass the usual login information and instead require you to verify your identity with a FaceID scan or a fingerprint. This feature is the most secure option, because only you have access to your biometric data.
Once you have these set up, your X account is secure, and you won’t have to worry about hackers attempting to break in and cause trouble.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Starlink needs a reality check
We should all be for vision and ambition.
Few have demonstrated the power of both better than Elon Musk. SpaceX has transformed the economics of space launch, while Starlink has shown that low-Earth-orbit satellites can deliver broadband connectivity on a remarkable scale. There is plenty to admire.
Starlink says it has a new ambition: not simply to fill coverage gaps, but to become a ubiquitous communications platform — potentially offering broadband, mobile service, handsets, and even operating systems.
This audacious vision runs headlong into the forces that have constrained telecommunications for decades: the laws of physics, economics, and regulation.
The laws of physics don’t bend to stock prices. The laws of economics don’t care about hype. And regulators don’t care how disruptive the pitch sounds.
The first reality check is physics.
Starlink’s strength of remote area coverage to fill gaps becomes a limitation in cities. Terrestrial networks divide coverage into thousands of cells, enabling repeated spectrum reuse and capacity scaling. Satellite beams cannot match this granular spectrum efficiency.
The next challenge is buildings. Satellite signals do not penetrate shopping malls, offices, apartment blocks, or underground space. People spend much of their time indoors, places that require terrestrial networks, small cells, Wi-Fi, fiber, and other ground-based infrastructure.
This is not a satellite model failure; it just demonstrates that no single network can do it all. Different networks have strengths and weaknesses: The ability to fill coverage gaps is not the same as providing reliable, nationwide capacity. SpaceX says it plans to build a terrestrial component. This will likely strengthen its network, but it does not make satellites a substitute for terrestrial networks.
Then comes the law of economics.
Telecom has an elusive holy grail: the fourth operator. Regulators and competition authorities routinely argue that markets need four or five mobile networks. Yet mobile markets around the world are consolidating toward three, and sometimes two, operators — including sophisticated markets such as India and China. Why? Because mobile networks have enormous fixed costs.
Operators must acquire spectrum, obtain permits, build sites, and continually upgrade networks as traffic grows — all while consumers expect more data for less money. Starlink is not immune to this reality. It has added demand surcharges for some customers, pushing broadband prices as high as $1,500 per month in some markets.
The fourth-operator dream has another inconvenient history. Starlink acquired 65 MHz of spectrum from EchoStar for $19.6 billion. That spectrum came from DISH Network, which spent years trying to make itself the fourth nationwide U.S. mobile operator but could not get the economics to work
Starlink has advantages DISH did not, including its satellite network, capital, and global customer base. But it still must overcome the conundrum of continuously absorbing more traffic while keeping customer prices low.
RELATED: Big Tech gets the network. You get the bill.
Then there is the law of regulation.
Telecommunications is not a “move fast and break things” industry. Spectrum is governed by complex national, technical, and international rules. Deployment requires coordination with other spectrum users, permitting, environmental reviews, zoning, rights-of-way, and state public utility commissions.
SpaceX has already experienced this reality. When California regulators objected to aspects of SpaceX's launch plans, the company moved activity to Texas. Internationally, governments can be even more consequential. Turkey, for example, has not allowed Starlink to operate within its borders.
Spectrum creates another obligation. Public spectrum is not an ordinary asset. It is allocated according to set conditions, often including build-out or use requirements.
Finally, there is the law of the market.
Investors love news: big ambitions, disruptive narratives, barbs, and vibes. SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell said on the company’s first earnings call that she expected Starlink to win “quite a few” customers from AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile and that SpaceX “definitely” intends to build a terrestrial component. The comments rattled some telecom investors. Such statements are catnip for traders: the market can trade on the story long before the network exists. It is a familiar asymmetry: incumbents must respond to the threat today, while Starlink can promise to deliver the network tomorrow — or never.
Starlink deserves both praise and scrutiny. Its satellite network is extraordinary, and direct-to-device connectivity will fill coverage gaps. But disrupting the mobile market is not the same as replacing mobile carriers, just as owning spectrum is not the same as building a nationwide network.
The laws of physics don’t bend to stock prices. The laws of economics don’t care about hype. And regulators don’t care how disruptive the pitch sounds. The markets may react to the statement, but seriously competing for customers at scale will require a robust terrestrial network. Starlink has already shown that hard things are possible. It has not yet shown how it can do this.
GHOUL NATION: Pop culture's decade-long descent into cruelty and bloodlust
Once upon a time, displaying the bloodied head of a U.S. president could get you canceled. And it did.
This was before cancel culture was a thing, a time when Americans had a shared sense of decency and found obviously heinous acts ... heinous.
Earlier this year, 'Saturday Night Live’s' Weekend Update teased a Trump assassination joke that roiled the crowd.
No need for context or explanations. The culture at large acknowledged certain unwritten rules of behavior that should be followed. Now, those rules are fading if not gone entirely. And we can track that descent, seen across the political landscape, from a pop culture prism.
Head case
Comic Kathy Griffin thought she was being clever by holding a pretend President Donald Trump head up high, ISIS-style, for a 2017 photo shoot she shared on social media.
The reaction was swift, furious, and uncompromising. Griffin had gone too far.
Few, if any, ran to her defense. She apologized and watched her D-list career shrink to the size of a thumb drive. Those were simpler times, when doing the right thing meant putting political tribalism aside when needed.
Love Trump? Loathe Trump? It wasn’t important. This was beyond the pale.
Something similar happened in 2015 involving another GOP leader. Word leaked that Will Ferrell was mulling a big-screen "comedy" about a dementia-addled President Reagan doddering around the Oval Office. The reaction was swift and furious and not just from the former president’s grown children.
Ferrell backpedaled, claiming he had never officially signed onto the project.
Even Madonna, who forged her brand from outrageous behavior, did a hasty retreat in 2017 when she shared her dream about blowing up the White House (with a certain leader inside, presumably) during a Women’s March event.
The pop superstar apologized for a good reason. Her thoughts were unbecoming of a celebrity of her stature.
That was then.
The cruel kids
Today, political culture is infinitely worse. Cold. Cruel. Violent, even.
Political pundits like Hasan Piker can cheer on the deaths of landlords, say America deserved 9/11, and praise Hamas over Israel after the Oct. 7 atrocities. Not only is he not shunned by polite society, but Democratic politicians scramble to appear beside him.
Major publications fawn all over him too. Big-city mayors can cozy up to terrorists and voters look the other way.
Ghoulish. It’s not happening in a vacuum. Pop cultural institutions are similarly ghoulish, celebrating violence while their audiences clap like seals.
Last year, DNC spokesman Jimmy Kimmel found something deeply funny about Tesla dealerships coming under vandalism attacks. The company’s owner, Elon Musk, had sided with President Trump during the 2024 election cycle and helped trim government fat from the workforce.
For that, he must be punished.
"People have been vandalizing Tesla vehicles, new Tesla vehicles. Please, don't vandalize, don’t ever vandalize Tesla vehicles."
The host said it with a sarcastic glint.
RELATED: Democrats created a Hasan Piker problem. Now they want everyone to forget it.
Cheering chaos
Later that year, Kimmel leaned into some seriously Fake News, alleging that Charlie Kirk’s killer was part of MAGA Nation. The only credible suspect at the time was a young man who loathed Kirk’s politics, a far cry from a typical Trump supporter.
Kimmel and his writers knew that. We all did. The hosts said it, anyway, earning a week’s suspension from his ABC bully pulpit and becoming a free speech martyr to the press and the left (but we repeat ourselves).
Earlier this year, “Saturday Night Live’s” Weekend Update teased a Trump assassination joke that roiled the crowd. Faux co-anchor Michael Che noted that the president had recently taken in a Broadway-style show.
“I think that’s cool that the president is going to the theater. I mean — what’s the worst that could happen?” The show’s hard-left audience cheered.
Late-night shows were occasionally caught by surprise at how vicious their audiences had become. They learned it from watching them, of course.
Baying for blood
Consider when Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” fame told his audience about Luigi Mangione’s arrest on charges he murdered a health care CEO by shooting him from behind.
The crowd booed in response, as if they wanted the killer to remain free (to kill other CEOs, perhaps?).
“Look, I’m sorry, guys,” a stunned Stewart said in response, like Dr. Frankenstein looking in horror at his creation.
Kimmel found it hilarious that some of his young, female staffers were Luigi fangirls in not-so-obvious disguise. He should have been ashamed of the revelation and kept it quiet.
Not Kimmel.
Just days ago, multiple late-night hosts mocked President Trump for hiding in a catering truck after the Secret Service learned of a possible threat on his life.
These threats are increasingly common in Trump’s second term. One would-be assassin came within inches of murdering the commander in chief at a Butler, Pennsylvania, rally two years ago.
For late-night clowns, the latest assassination threat was merely a chance to torment Trump, not acknowledge the dangerous world we live in. Even the low-rated Jimmy Fallon, who isn’t as cruel as his competitors, mocked the moment.
Hollywood collectively warned us about Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. He would be cruel, they cried, unlike any prior president.
And, yes, President Trump has thrown some pretty sharp elbows over nearly six years in office. Hollywood, sadly, has proven to be far worse, echoing a societal race to the bottom.
Twitter is back, and it’s worse than you think
Twitter’s back! Sort of. After Elon Musk rebranded the "global town square" of social media to X.com, another company swooped in to pick up the old name, claiming that Musk abandoned the brand. So far, a Trump-appointed judge has even agreed to the hostile takeover, but the story is a little more complicated. Now Elon’s fighting back, the new Twitter might be ashes again, and a final verdict of the once-legendary Twitter name now hangs in the balance of an upcoming court case.
Shortly after Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, he made it clear that he had no interest in maintaining the brand or the bird that rocketed the social network to political prominence. He would keep the foundation of the app in place, but otherwise, it would take on the “X” moniker that adorns many of Musk’s entrepreneurial endeavors, including SpaceX, the Tesla Model X, and xAI.
The new Twitter hasn’t changed from the old Twitter at all.
With a new badge, a new color scheme, and a new attitude to defend the rights of free speech everywhere, much to the chagrin of the left, X.com became the new digital town square for all to enjoy. But even as X battled the odds and flourished into new ventures, opportunistic vultures began to pick through the remains of Twitter’s relinquished shell in search of a phoenix that could rise from the ashes.
The vultures swarm
The new startup, dubbed Operation Bluebird Inc., quickly swooped in, dug its claws into the Twitter name, and claimed it as its own. The excuse? Elon Musk abandoned the brand wholesale when he closed Twitter in favor of X. Even worse, a Trump-appointed U.S. District Court Judge, Colm Connolly, agreed that the brand was open for a takeover, including the logo, name, and verb to “tweet” a post.
Naturally, Musk wasn’t happy with the move. After all, even if Twitter is dead, everyone recognizes that X is the new and improved sequel. In this way, Twitter isn’t gone at all — it just evolved into something more ambitious. He filed a lawsuit in late 2025 over the brand grab, but as both sides wait for a trial, Operation Bluebird Inc. went ahead and launched a new site for its endeavor: Twitter.now.
RELATED: Elon Musk's new megaproject is about to transform Texas
New Twitter, same as the old Twitter
There’s plenty of debate as to whether or not Operation Bluebird Inc. had any legal right to commandeer the Twitter brand, and that will surely be hashed out in court. In the meantime, let’s take a look at the new site and see if it’s any good.
Or at least, we would look at the site if it were currently live. Shortly after Twitter.now launched, the entire thing was taken down with a simple splash screen on the landing page, stating, “We’re down. We’re on it. Already learning things the hard way. We will be back as soon as we can. Love you guys 💙”
It’s been like this for more than a week.
While there isn’t much information available on what could have happened, it appears that Elon Musk and his legal team clipped the new Twitter’s wings before it even got a chance to fly. That said, if the new site ever gets airborne again, here are some things you can look forward to:
The new community notes are powered by AI: For starters, Twitter.now plans to emulate X.com’s community notes by installing an automated fact-checking tool powered by Google Gemini. That’s right, the new arbiter of truth on Twitter will be an AI bot that’s beholden to the same flaws as any other — it could hallucinate facts, misinterpret information, and inject political bias into its responses.
The new logo is worse than the original: Operation Bluebird Inc. tried to be cheeky. The new logo resembles the general shape of the original Twitter bird, but its version appears more like a phoenix, as in the mythical bird that rises from the ashes of its own charred corpse. Clever.
The new constitution is more of the same old Twitter: Twitter.now promises to “bring back a town square that’s safer and less harmful.” How, you might ask? According to the Birdhouse Constitution, it plans to force users to tweet under their real names in lieu of aliases, protect freedom of speech (that sounds familiar), and down-rank “misinformation” and other negative speech (that sounds very familiar). It is proud of its motto that freedom of speech does not equal freedom of reach. In other words, the new Twitter hasn’t changed from the old Twitter at all. The same unapproved voices will be censored to the darkest corners of the internet while the mainstream talking points are allowed to proliferate the feed.
Does X have any reason to worry?
In a word, no. First, there’s a strong chance that Twitter.now gets shut down entirely by the end of the court case filed by Elon Musk and his team. However, even if Operation Bluebird Inc. gets the all-clear to take off again, chances that the social network will succeed are rather slim. X will continue to reign as the platform for free speech, while Twitter will become a place no better than BlueSky for approved talking points, authoritarian thought control, and obscure left-wing devotees.
At the end of the day, the original Twitter.com still redirects to X.com, the real public square of the internet.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com