It'll be interesting to see if the situation evolves further.
slg · 45m ago
It if funny to phrase it like that as if you weren't one of the people in that thread arguing against those skeptical people pointing out issues with the accusations.
Anything using Ockham's razor is a statement about what's more likely when you don't know the truth. Those priors were obviously wrong. I also said we'd find out shortly if it was faked, and now we're here.
Do you think I shouldn't update my understanding based on new information?
slg · 2m ago
>Those priors were obviously wrong.
You're doing it again here with the passive voice. You weren't wrong, it was "Ockham's razor" and "those priors" that were wrong.
>Do you think I shouldn't update my understanding based on new information?
I'm saying that your responses here show that you aren't actually doing that. You aren't taking any responsibility for your prior incorrect assumptions and therefore you are likely to continue making similar wrong assumptions in the future. How can you learn from this experience if you can't admit that you did anything wrong?
perihelions · 3h ago
And at least 222 people believed it to be true (or else those are some illogical upvotes).
mlok · 2h ago
An upvote does not mean the user believes the story is true.
ameliaquining · 2h ago
I read the thread when it had something like 50 comments, and most of them were treating it as either confirmed or at least potentially true, and using it as an opportunity to rail against corporate abuse in full generality, just like every HN thread about a negative story about a tech company. It was only later that the skeptical comments started to rise to the top.
motorest · 1h ago
> I read the thread when it had something like 50 comments, and most of them were treating it as either confirmed or at least potentially true (...)
I think you're trying to fabricate an alternative version of reality while being aware that the facts (i.e., the actual posts in the thread) are not on your side.
potato3732842 · 6m ago
The best part is that if the alleged reality is true it's an even bigger condemnation of the community.
"no, they didn't believe it, they were engaging in strategic trolling and vote gaming" as if that doesn't imply a way more malicious frame of mind than some hapless idiot looking at the message and going "yup, seems legit, upvote we go".
(disclaimer: I wasn't in those comments, IDK who's reality is true here)
zahlman · 2h ago
Many of the people who suspected the story to be a fake were... not very well received in that thread, at least at first.
nailer · 2h ago
Since HN is manually unflagging political posts, and not enforcing the 'uses HN for political advocacy' guideline the site is generally more combatative and there's a lot more hoaxes and conspiracy theories on the front page.
gonzobonzo · 2h ago
I've noticed this as well. It feels more and more like Reddit everyday.
thebruce87m · 2h ago
Exactly - they might have something to gain by convincing others it is true for example.
kimbernator · 2h ago
There are non-nefarious reasons, too. If someone is unsure whether something is real they could upvote it to increase visibility and discussion.
perihelions · 2h ago
Then they are illogically boosting a hoax on purpose, or at least with reckless disregard for truth.
username332211 · 2h ago
Or they want knowledge of the hoax to spread, so as to protect the victim against further lies?
zahlman · 2h ago
Just because you don't consciously believe something to be true, doesn't mean you don't care about its veracity. The null hypothesis is that people are willing to treat things as true based on their priors — which could be informed by things as simple as "this was posted on a website not known as a den of misinformation, and shared on HN" — while not actually devoting thought to an investigation of the truth.
nailer · 2h ago
> "this was posted on a website not known as a den of misinformation, and shared on HN"
I don't know whether you mean Threads or Bluesky but it sounds like you haven't used either.
natch · 1h ago
Yeah I have peeked into both and have never seen such a strident collection of vituperation, misinformation, and hatred. For people who claim to have left Twitter due to supposed toxicity, they definitely seem unacquainted with mirrors.
pengaru · 1h ago
If your goal is to burn down tesla/musk, you logically promote everything remotely damaging.
And there are plenty rational reasons to have that goal.
dkiebd · 1h ago
It’s funny that I just read the thread on rationalism and then come back to this one and someone posted this flawed nonsense.
vpribish · 2h ago
Or not engaging enough to come to any conclusion - just chuckle - upvote. Useful, but not idiots nor villains
ufmace · 44m ago
Well I see it's flagged for now, and I was one of the flaggers.
IMO, at least by the time I saw it, there were more than enough red flags raised to say that having it on HN before more evidence is available is only flamebait.
general1726 · 1h ago
Because it is on-brand with Musk behavior. If for example somebody would write that Mercedes bricked a car to an influencer, people would be skeptical because that would not be how Mercedes usually operates.
slg · 55m ago
>Because it is on-brand with Musk behavior.
It really isn't. I said as much in the previous thread, but the part that elevates this past the typical petty Musk behavior was the accusation that the car was bricked while it was being driven. That goes way past anything Tesla or Musk has done before and could easily have killed someone. Doing that doesn't just require an asshole CEO, it would require incompetence of both the legal and technical folks at the company who would actually implement this type of haphazard remote disabling.
AlotOfReading · 43m ago
Pretty clear this was faked, but continuing the previous discussion, a vehicle lock doesn't have to be as dangerous as you're thinking.
I've implemented limp modes before and the easiest way is to prevent acceleration to over a certain speed without enabling regen. If you're already at highway speeds, you'll simply coast down to the limp speed and have plenty of time to pull over.
I suspect that wouldn't fall afoul of FMVSS either, but it's never come up for me.
slg · 33m ago
>Pretty clear this was faked
Yet you were saying the opposite in that previous thread.
>I've implemented limp modes before and the easiest way is to prevent acceleration to over a certain speed without enabling regen. If you're already at highway speeds, you'll simply coast down to the limp speed and have plenty of time to pull over.
The video had the car stopped in the middle of traffic, so this wasn't the accusation being made. You are creating a hypothetical scenario in which the accusations are plausible rather than actually engaging with the accusations as they were made.
schmidp · 1h ago
hmm, remember when Mercedes tried to fake how well their emergency assistance works and had their mics still on?
aydyn · 1h ago
"Yeah I fell for the bait, but that says a lot about my political enemies"
Come on, you'd get laughed out of any other serious forum.
ujkhsjkdhf234 · 58m ago
This is not what they are saying.
scarmig · 18m ago
The original:
"Because it is on-brand with Musk behavior. If for example somebody would write that Mercedes bricked a car to an influencer, people would be skeptical because that would not be how Mercedes usually operates."
The paraphrase:
"Yeah I fell for the bait, but that says a lot about my political enemies."
Seems fair to me.
seanw444 · 1h ago
This is Hacker News. There are some hive mind positions you just don't question. It's starting to feel like Reddit with a tech lean.
natch · 1h ago
More like it's on brand with the fantastic delusions people have about Musk. In reality Tesla and Musk are very good about privacy and leaving control with the user. But, you do you.
scottbez1 · 1h ago
This statement "Tesla and Musk are very good about privacy and leaving control with the user" is pretty clearly false [1]:
> between 2019 and 2022, groups of Tesla employees privately shared via an internal messaging system sometimes highly invasive videos and images recorded by customers’ car cameras, according to interviews by Reuters with nine former employees.
Claims of privacy and user control are mostly "trust" based. A car that can be controlled and surveilled remotely, will be controlled and surveilled remotely. To dissuade potential customers of that notion they require faith in independent public or private institutions and their ability to verify that attacks on their privacy and autonomy are not possible. That doesn't seem possible in the zero trust environment people like Musk are promoting. Musk is his own worst enemy.
gamblor956 · 1h ago
Reminded of all those times that Musk had Tesla release crash details on X pinning the blame on the driver when it was in Tesla's interest to shift the blame for crashes. Yep, great commitment to privacy there.
You know what automakers don't do that? Literally every other automaker. When they release those kinds of details, they do so in response to a court proceeding as part of the legal discovery process so that privacy concerns, etc. can be dealt with before the information is released.
protimewaster · 1h ago
Plus, they supposedly had it turn off the automatic features just before it detected an imminent crash, ensuring that they could always correctly tell everyone that "Auto Pilot was off at the time of the crash". Of course, that doesn't mean that it wasn't used in the 20 seconds prior.
So, those details weren't actually insightful. They were just PR bullshit.
ujkhsjkdhf234 · 56m ago
Everyone else is giving you examples as to why you have to be delusional to believe this so I'm not going to pile on but I've seen no evidence that Tesla and Musk are good in regards to handling privacy and user data but I've seen many examples that they are bad with it.
LastTrain · 3h ago
Evolves further how? What do you expect might happen next?
AlotOfReading · 2h ago
As I said in that thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44860077), seems like a slam-dunk defamation case for Tesla (assuming they want to pursue it) if the whole thing was fabricated.
aaronbaugher · 1h ago
Nothing new under the sun. Remember when NBC admitted to rigging a truck to burst into flames in a crash for Dateline, because it wouldn't do it on its own? Or when a jury found that Consumer Reports lied about how easily an Isuzu pickup rolled over on turns?
But hey, the media probably wouldn't lie these days, and Musk bad man.
amarcheschi · 2h ago
I'm the one who posted a similar post that wasn't removed. The actions of the ceo in the past would not make this event unreasonable imho
BSOhealth · 2h ago
It’s easy to be cynical specifically in this case, when Elon has in the past very gleefully amplified AI fakes to drum up social sentiment
gruez · 2h ago
I don't get it. Is the implication that Elon/Tesla/X specifically promoted/amplified the post?
apercu · 2h ago
I infer that the implication is "that's rich coming from Elon/Tesla" because Elon is not honest and amplifies misinformation often?
(not singling Elon out, he's one of many)
No comments yet
babypuncher · 2h ago
The implication is that Elon is a massive hypocrite for complaining when these dishonest tactics are used against him because he uses them all the time.
breadwinner · 37m ago
During election, Musk promoted a lot of deep fakes about Kamala Harris, including fake images generated using Grok. He's a total asshole.
The fact that this deactivation feels possible is still a telling sign of where we’ve been heading. Update fail. Subscription lapsed payment. All sorts of new failure modes.
slg · 40m ago
"The lie has value because it feels true" is one of the more disturbing trends I have seen gain traction on the internet in recent years. People are now unironically turning themselves in the Stephen Colbert character from The Colbert Report[1].
Yeah. I have noticed a disturbing amount of people believe fake stories, tweets, videos, propaganda etc. because it confirms their worldview or is otherwise fun. For example, the amount of people who thought dumb Republicans were dying from eating horse dewormer was way overblown. Or that Haitian immigrants were eating cats and dogs.
I have adopted an extremely skeptical view of almost all content on the internet now. Fun videos that are staged aren't particularly harmful. Something like "a crazy coincidence or wild prank" made to look real and genuine is not particularly sinister. I personally have briefly put way to much stock in a screenshot of a Tweet from an unattributed anonymous poster alleging X happened. Simply because "it feels true" and confirms my bias. Be careful out there kids!
jljljl · 26m ago
I think it is troubling to say “the lie has value”, but it is worth thinking why certain stories and hoaxes resonate. It’s similar to how sci-fi and horror can reflect the anxieties of their contemporary society
vlucas · 2h ago
Given all the fake Tesla news and seemingly inexhaustible supply of Tesla haters, this was my first thought as well.
testing22321 · 2h ago
One of the richest people in the world has a billion dollar short position on Tesla.
You can bet there is enormous might trying everything to rank the stock
cactusplant7374 · 2h ago
Tesla's autonomous driving solution is 10 years overdue and the stock's PE ratio is almost 200. If Gates still has a short position, I am sure he is waiting silently.
shayway · 1h ago
I'm not sure which is more concerning: how easy it was to fall for it in the first place, or the mental gymnastics some are going through to place the blame outside themselves.
A lie is a lie, it does not matter how plausible it is. "No smoke without fire" is complete bullshit that leaves room only for cascading hatred.
In this case, there's definitive proof of it being a hoax, and news of it seems to be spreading. But how many more subtle falsehoods are being spread, ones that aren't as easily disproven? And how many perfectly plausible lies does it take for a narrative to become self-sustaining?
There is no shortage of real and verifiable things to be outraged about (Tesla-related or otherwise). Don't waste your headspace on anything less.
LightBug1 · 1h ago
The company of a CEO - well known for lying, running software that enables deepfakes, and just all around douchebaggery - has one its product hit with a fake image ...
Oh ... how terrible ...
philipallstar · 3h ago
> Despite these issues, the video went viral on BlueSky, X, and Reddit — and likely will continue to travel far and wide, confirming many people’s prior opinions about Tesla and Elon Musk.
There's no confirmation bias on BlueSky. No sir.
ameliaquining · 2h ago
HN also fell for the video at first, so let's not throw stones here.
nailer · 2h ago
Let's criticise HN too. It was fake, it was a fairly obvious fake, and HN should have known better.
JKCalhoun · 3h ago
Telling though, isn't it? I mean the degree to which this is so instantly believable.
(And "X" was called out to, FWIW.)
All car manufacturers should be paying attention.
ryandrake · 3h ago
Fakes become believable when they are on-brand and match people's existing expectations, in this case about a company. I would totally expect petty, retaliatory behavior from a company run by a petty, retaliatory guy. So a forgery totally bypasses my usual "bullshit detector". This is a human weakness that a lot of people, admittedly including myself, are vulnerable to.
anonymars · 2h ago
Precisely. If it had been a Honda or a Ford would folks have found it as plausible?
andrewflnr · 1h ago
We didn't need a fake incident to "tell" us about Tesla's reputation. We already knew that. It's "telling" us zero bits of new information.
dkiebd · 3h ago
Tired of car manufacturers doing politics, and this goes for all of them. Well, for all companies. Just make goods and shut up, dammit.
andsoitis · 3h ago
Both customers and employees put pressure on companies to take sides on particular issues.
I can see the rationale behind it but it has very dysfunctional and unhealthy outcomes.
XorNot · 2h ago
Other then Tesla which car companies are doing politics beyond the usual "donate to both sides" thing?
Tesla, due to Musk, is an absolute outlier here.
dkiebd · 1h ago
Gaywashing and greenwashing for example, which almost all (all?) legacy car companies engage in in some capacity.
philipallstar · 3h ago
> Telling though, isn't it? I mean the degree to which this is so instantly believable.
It's telling on the users in question and their relationship with reality.
arp242 · 3h ago
You're ignoring the "X" and "Reddit" and focusing purely on Bluesky. Your post here is a good example of confirmation bias in itself, and it's sad that you're not realising it.
Swizec · 3h ago
> It's telling on the users in question and their relationship with reality.
It’s telling to Tesla’s brand reputation. This will take decades and billions of dollars to repair, if it even can be fixed.
Tesla may become synonymous with cars-as-internet-of-shit. Same as how Italian cars to this day are the butt of every reliability joke. This reputation has followed them since the 90’s. British cars are synonymous with cheap construction – a reputation they built in the 70’s.
Stuff like this can be forever.
jadamson · 2h ago
The question is why certain people found believable in the first place. "May become synonymous" implies they're not already, in which case this instance wouldn't be believable.
In reality, people who believed this probably think Elon is a petty tyrant and don't like his politics. I agree with them, especially on the first point. The difference is that they either allow this to overwhelm their critical thinking skills, or never had any to begin with.
Swizec · 2h ago
> why certain people found believable in the first place
Because Tesla’s brand perception is that of a shady company who would do something like this and nobody would be surprised. How they built that reputation I don’t know, lots of little things over the years.
HamsterDan · 1h ago
Sure, it's not true, but the fact that I believed it could be true pretty much confirms that Elon is evil, does it not?
There's something of a difference between the abstract presentation there and the much more tangible brand problem Tesla has. If this was a Ford nobody would believe it. They might argue it broke down. If it was a Toyota nobody would believe that.
But Elon Musk has made himself the face of Tesla, used that power in other contexts to go after critics, and the Cybertruck had a bizarre anti resale clause when released and Tesla have made a habit of features-as-a-service with remote software deactivations when other vehicles are resold.
So in the specific case here, the reaction very much represents a big brand sentiment problem attributable to concrete issues.
ameliaquining · 2h ago
There's kind of a fine line between "that this went viral shows that Tesla has a brand problem" (a logically valid argument) and "that I found this believable shows that Tesla is bad" (what the comic is about). The top-level comment did not go super-far out of its way to distinguish between the two, which I think is generally worth doing if you're making an argument that sounds similar to a common fallacy.
afthonos · 2h ago
What an interesting way of thinking.
More seriously, the correct reaction to a fake is to adjust towards whatever the fake is moving your away from. If the fake wants you to believe Tesla is a company that will brick your car while driving — adjust towards it being more likely that they won’t, because if it were, there would be no need to fake it.
Saying instead “huh, I guess my priors were right all along because of how many people believed it” is…yeah, an interesting way of thinking.
IncreasePosts · 3h ago
Except it wasn't instantly believable. Which is why there were a large number of comments on the previous thread (including my own) saying this was almost certainly fake.
potato3732842 · 3h ago
Believable to who?
Surely there were a bunch of automotive engineers on Reddit getting downvoted to oblivion for suggesting that this doesn't pass a sniff test because it arguably violates subsection 69 of FMVSS 420 or that they don't need to do that because industry standard is to just prevent the car from starting next time, or whatever.
angrysaki · 3h ago
How horrible that their confirmation bias is that bad people are bad, and that the future is a dystopian world where you don't own what you paid for...
Levitz · 3h ago
It's hilarious how that's pretty much true, only you have to define "bad" as "ideologically different" and you're set. Anyone disagreeing with the userbase in any contentious topic, well, they are just evil, that's all.,
aplummer · 2h ago
You don’t have to define “bad” after the second nazi salute.
No comments yet
bitwize · 2h ago
The current situation in the USA is that we're dealing with milquetoast liberals on one side and a party led by a full-blown authoritarian autocrat (with whom Musk has aligned) on the other. This is no mere ideological difference. This is a struggle against evil.
bigstrat2003 · 26m ago
That is very much not the current situation in the USA. You need to take a long break from politics; this is just another administration. In 2028 we will have an election, there will be a new president, and things will be just fine.
mindslight · 14m ago
... except for all of the destruction wrought on our societal and government institutions. The other half of the problem is that the milquetoast "liberals" have stopped building things as well. Our institutions have been coasting on inertia from over half a century ago (hence the overfocus on cookie-cutter policing the outcomes from the very real culture war battles that were fought in the 70s-90s). We will have a new "president" in name mostly, with even more power ceded to the unaccountable corpos. And then when people are bored of the relative stability in another four or eight years, they'll vote in destructionists again and we'll be back to the spectacles of cruelty.
avgDev · 2h ago
When you step away from the internet things are much better. Internet is a toxic place.
Levitz · 2h ago
Surely there are more than two stances that can be had on issues?
Plus I still remember that time a certain journalist entered the platform and people completely lost their shit, making up pedophilia allegations, demanding him to be banned, publishing the location of his residence and instigating violence against him.
Was this a "struggle against evil"?
philipallstar · 1h ago
The milquetoast liberals keep destroying property, hitting people with wrenches, and getting people fired for not using the "correct" pronouns.
enslavedrobot · 3h ago
Or maybe it's not. Maybe you only think that's true and see everything through that lense.
snickerdoodle12 · 2h ago
Crazy that people don't like a confirmed Nazi, huh?
jadamson · 2h ago
It is possible to dislike (or even hate) someone, without allowing yourself to be exploited. Apart from anything else, you are giving ammunition to the other side by doing so.
FergusArgyll · 1h ago
I can see why you fell for this hoax...
josteink · 2h ago
Thanks for confirming the bias.
Also lol. Falling for the «Elon is a nazi»-hoax :D
That’s quite a dog-whistle for how someone gets their information.
SketchySeaBeast · 1h ago
Is this how people are going to water down and re-brand "dog-whistle"? Get it to stop meaning "coded political messaging" and have it mean "indicator"? Regardless of whether you agree with GP or not, there was nothing coded about what they were saying.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44859807
It'll be interesting to see if the situation evolves further.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44859991
Do you think I shouldn't update my understanding based on new information?
You're doing it again here with the passive voice. You weren't wrong, it was "Ockham's razor" and "those priors" that were wrong.
>Do you think I shouldn't update my understanding based on new information?
I'm saying that your responses here show that you aren't actually doing that. You aren't taking any responsibility for your prior incorrect assumptions and therefore you are likely to continue making similar wrong assumptions in the future. How can you learn from this experience if you can't admit that you did anything wrong?
I think you're trying to fabricate an alternative version of reality while being aware that the facts (i.e., the actual posts in the thread) are not on your side.
"no, they didn't believe it, they were engaging in strategic trolling and vote gaming" as if that doesn't imply a way more malicious frame of mind than some hapless idiot looking at the message and going "yup, seems legit, upvote we go".
(disclaimer: I wasn't in those comments, IDK who's reality is true here)
I don't know whether you mean Threads or Bluesky but it sounds like you haven't used either.
And there are plenty rational reasons to have that goal.
IMO, at least by the time I saw it, there were more than enough red flags raised to say that having it on HN before more evidence is available is only flamebait.
It really isn't. I said as much in the previous thread, but the part that elevates this past the typical petty Musk behavior was the accusation that the car was bricked while it was being driven. That goes way past anything Tesla or Musk has done before and could easily have killed someone. Doing that doesn't just require an asshole CEO, it would require incompetence of both the legal and technical folks at the company who would actually implement this type of haphazard remote disabling.
I've implemented limp modes before and the easiest way is to prevent acceleration to over a certain speed without enabling regen. If you're already at highway speeds, you'll simply coast down to the limp speed and have plenty of time to pull over.
I suspect that wouldn't fall afoul of FMVSS either, but it's never come up for me.
Yet you were saying the opposite in that previous thread.
>I've implemented limp modes before and the easiest way is to prevent acceleration to over a certain speed without enabling regen. If you're already at highway speeds, you'll simply coast down to the limp speed and have plenty of time to pull over.
The video had the car stopped in the middle of traffic, so this wasn't the accusation being made. You are creating a hypothetical scenario in which the accusations are plausible rather than actually engaging with the accusations as they were made.
Come on, you'd get laughed out of any other serious forum.
"Because it is on-brand with Musk behavior. If for example somebody would write that Mercedes bricked a car to an influencer, people would be skeptical because that would not be how Mercedes usually operates."
The paraphrase:
"Yeah I fell for the bait, but that says a lot about my political enemies."
Seems fair to me.
> between 2019 and 2022, groups of Tesla employees privately shared via an internal messaging system sometimes highly invasive videos and images recorded by customers’ car cameras, according to interviews by Reuters with nine former employees.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sens...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sens...
You know what automakers don't do that? Literally every other automaker. When they release those kinds of details, they do so in response to a court proceeding as part of the legal discovery process so that privacy concerns, etc. can be dealt with before the information is released.
So, those details weren't actually insightful. They were just PR bullshit.
But hey, the media probably wouldn't lie these days, and Musk bad man.
(not singling Elon out, he's one of many)
No comments yet
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinformation/kamala-harris-de...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
I have adopted an extremely skeptical view of almost all content on the internet now. Fun videos that are staged aren't particularly harmful. Something like "a crazy coincidence or wild prank" made to look real and genuine is not particularly sinister. I personally have briefly put way to much stock in a screenshot of a Tweet from an unattributed anonymous poster alleging X happened. Simply because "it feels true" and confirms my bias. Be careful out there kids!
A lie is a lie, it does not matter how plausible it is. "No smoke without fire" is complete bullshit that leaves room only for cascading hatred.
In this case, there's definitive proof of it being a hoax, and news of it seems to be spreading. But how many more subtle falsehoods are being spread, ones that aren't as easily disproven? And how many perfectly plausible lies does it take for a narrative to become self-sustaining?
There is no shortage of real and verifiable things to be outraged about (Tesla-related or otherwise). Don't waste your headspace on anything less.
Oh ... how terrible ...
There's no confirmation bias on BlueSky. No sir.
(And "X" was called out to, FWIW.)
All car manufacturers should be paying attention.
I can see the rationale behind it but it has very dysfunctional and unhealthy outcomes.
Tesla, due to Musk, is an absolute outlier here.
It's telling on the users in question and their relationship with reality.
It’s telling to Tesla’s brand reputation. This will take decades and billions of dollars to repair, if it even can be fixed.
Tesla may become synonymous with cars-as-internet-of-shit. Same as how Italian cars to this day are the butt of every reliability joke. This reputation has followed them since the 90’s. British cars are synonymous with cheap construction – a reputation they built in the 70’s.
Stuff like this can be forever.
In reality, people who believed this probably think Elon is a petty tyrant and don't like his politics. I agree with them, especially on the first point. The difference is that they either allow this to overwhelm their critical thinking skills, or never had any to begin with.
Because Tesla’s brand perception is that of a shady company who would do something like this and nobody would be surprised. How they built that reputation I don’t know, lots of little things over the years.
But Elon Musk has made himself the face of Tesla, used that power in other contexts to go after critics, and the Cybertruck had a bizarre anti resale clause when released and Tesla have made a habit of features-as-a-service with remote software deactivations when other vehicles are resold.
So in the specific case here, the reaction very much represents a big brand sentiment problem attributable to concrete issues.
More seriously, the correct reaction to a fake is to adjust towards whatever the fake is moving your away from. If the fake wants you to believe Tesla is a company that will brick your car while driving — adjust towards it being more likely that they won’t, because if it were, there would be no need to fake it.
Saying instead “huh, I guess my priors were right all along because of how many people believed it” is…yeah, an interesting way of thinking.
Surely there were a bunch of automotive engineers on Reddit getting downvoted to oblivion for suggesting that this doesn't pass a sniff test because it arguably violates subsection 69 of FMVSS 420 or that they don't need to do that because industry standard is to just prevent the car from starting next time, or whatever.
No comments yet
Plus I still remember that time a certain journalist entered the platform and people completely lost their shit, making up pedophilia allegations, demanding him to be banned, publishing the location of his residence and instigating violence against him.
Was this a "struggle against evil"?
Also lol. Falling for the «Elon is a nazi»-hoax :D
That’s quite a dog-whistle for how someone gets their information.