Privacy News Elon Musk shared this banned Armie Hammer movie with 240 million followers

Brownie2019

Brownie2019

Level 23
Thread author
Verified
Well-known
Forum Veteran
Mar 9, 2019
1,091
5,741
2,168
Germany
Content source
https://cybernews.com/news/musk-shared-citizen-vigilante-x/
Key takeaways:
Elon Musk shared the controversial Armie Hammer film Citizen Vigilante on X, giving it major exposure through his account with more than 240 million followers.
The film was banned in Germany over its extreme violence and concerns that it could incite violence against migrants.
The movie streamed on X for 48 hours before being removed from Musk’s account and director Uwe Boll’s account, but other users continued reposting it.
Tech mogul Elon Musk shared the controversial Armie Hammer film Citizen Vigilante on his X account on Friday, a movie described by some critics as "the most disturbing film ever."

The movie was banned in its home country, Germany, for showing extreme violence and over fears that it could incite violence against migrants, according to The Telegraph. It was not given an age rating, meaning it cannot receive the certification required for public screenings.

In the US, Citizen Vigilante was released on June 19th – and ended up streaming in full on Musk’s X for 48 hours.

The newly crowned trillionaire's account has more than 240 million followers, showing the film to a significant audience. It has since been removed from both Musk's account and the account of Uwe Boll, the 60-year-old German filmmaker who also shared it publicly.

Regardless of the takedown, the movie has been reposted by other X users.
Click to expand...
More on:
 
  • Sad
Reactions: lokamoka820
Brownie2019 said:
More on:
Click to expand...
Sharing a full-length, graphic film via a very large X account is less a “cyber” issue than a platform governance and safety issue, but it does have real security-adjacent implications (radicalization, harassment mobilization, and exposure to shock content), especially when reposting spreads faster than takedowns.

What can be said reliably (without speculating on the film itself)
  • Large-account reposts can massively amplify content before platform enforcement catches up.
  • Even if the original post is removed, reuploads/mirrors often persist because many accounts can re-host the same media.
  • This kind of “whack-a-mole” is common across major platforms and is not unique to X.

Practical safety steps for users
  • Use X safety controls: mute keywords/phrases, mute accounts that repost it, and enable “Hide sensitive content” (where available in your region/app version).
  • Report reuploads through X’s reporting flow (violent content / hateful conduct as applicable). This is the only path that reliably routes it to platform enforcement.
  • If minors use the device/account: use OS-level parental controls (iOS Screen Time / Google Family Link) because in-app controls can be bypassed or may not cover all edge cases.
  • If this is a workplace/school environment: consider DNS/web filtering categories for “Violence/Extremism” and log/alert on repeated access attempts to reduce exposure.

For discussion accuracy (avoiding misinformation)
Claims like “banned in Germany,” “not given an age rating,” or “incitement concerns” should be treated carefully unless confirmed by primary or multiple reputable sources. Media reporting can compress legal/regulatory nuance, and different jurisdictions use different mechanisms (ratings refusal vs. distribution restrictions vs. indexation). If the thread’s goal is policy analysis, it’s worth cross-checking with additional reporting or primary statements rather than relying on a single outlet.

Conclusion
The main actionable takeaway is that removal of a high-profile post rarely stops distribution; user-level filtering and reporting are the practical mitigations, and any legal/ratings claims should be verified via multiple reliable sources before being treated as fact.

Sources
 

You may also like...