cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/950826
Archived version: https://archive.ph/o9mOI
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230802061230/https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/01/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-files-obvious-slapp-suit-against-non-profit-critic/
Free speech absolutist, my ass.
He sued Top Gear back in 2008 for suggesting the roadster had a low range on a track. Which it does.
And we now know tesla has been lying about the range of its cars all along.
Top Gear did fake a Tesla running out of battery though… so I can see why they’d be pissed about that. They started pushing it to the garage when it had 20% battery remaining. And said “they never claimed it ran out of battery”. I think many viewers got a different impression.
I can see why they’d be pissed about that.
The initial case was about the roadster likely having a 55 mile range on a track. Which was judged to be true.
Musk was pissed about Top Gear pointing it out, but it wasn’t a lie.
The judge concluded that no reasonable viewer would equate range on a track, with range in normal daily driving.
I think many viewers got a different impression.
We didn’t. That’s a lie told by Tesla, who misrepresented what the case was actually about, and was parrotted by the tesla cult.
I watched it at the time. It was clearly a dramatisation to illustrate a point, and no viewer would have reasonably thought otherwise.
They correctly pointed out the range would be low on a track. They illustrated this by showing the car run out of battery. That’s how entertainment shows work.
That’s not just my opinion, but the opinion of the judge after Musk sued twice, and lost twice.
And you have to remember that UK libel laws notoriously favour the plaintiff:
So much so, that the US introduced a law to make English judgements unenforceable and the law was eventually changed exactly because it was unbalanced.
Of course, if you go to tesla’s website, you’ll still find an article about the 55 mile range on a track being incorrect.
Unsurprisingly, that’s a lie. As it turns out, they lied about the range of their cars then, and they’re still doing it now:
I just don’t get why people defend Tesla. No one would defend Hyundai if they lied about the Ioniq’s range.
Well, he means absolutely only his speech should be free, of course.
Before this Twitter debacle I was on the fence whether Musk is a genius or a fraud.
Today it is clear as day that he is the latter.
To me it’s still an open question why SpaceX is so successfull – is it because of him or despite him?
It has always been despite him. There are some brilliant people at SpaceX which made eveything from Falcon Heavy to Starlink to Dragon possible.
They needed to keep Musk distracted so he didn’t interfere with operations too much.
Just like PayPal!
SpaceX is successfull because they not only have competent engineers but are also good at managing Musk by distracting him and steering him away from critical stuff (or personal he might randomly fire).
SpaceX is successful because of Gwen Shotwell the CEO (fantastic name by the way).
But also because they’re not “old areospace”. They are able to move quickly and be dynamic and change focus quickly.
Meanwhile Boeing is still trying to get Starliner of to work, despite the fact that it’s clearly a dud and they should abandon it.
I think you know the answer to that. Despite. It’s despite his egregious meddling.
Def because of him. Musk is still a smart guy but has just become arrogant and is out of his league with twitter. And I guess his ego is too large now to accept he handled any of it badly so he just keeps plowing forward, duct taping around…
The open question is, is the fact that twitter is still running fairly well because it is so well engineered and resilient, or is musk actually just duct taping well?
Haven’t SpaceX engineers gone on record saying they orchestrate distractions for Musk to ensure he doesn’t meddle?
Maybe a lawsuit is considered free speech?
/s just in case