Well. There might be things we don't know. Things that this person who earns their living by writing clickable articles on the internet doesn't tell us, doesn't know, or doesn't care to know.
Lawsuit documents often run in the hundreds of pages. And then there's evidence to consider. Anyone who proposes to know who is right and who is wrong in a lawsuit without having digested all of this material is simply gossiping. (In some cases, this applies even to the judge.)
perhaps RTFA, Tesla provided documentation that said the car had actually been involved in a collision.
SO they lied, incompetently tried to cover it up, handed over evidence that proved their opponents case, were found to be at fault, appealed the result, which was upheld. Now they want to sue this guy for, what seems to be, winning his case.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
In other words, you can point out that the comment contradicts the article (graciously). You're not beholden to still assume they read the article if it's blatantly obvious they did not, and are directly contradicting a key element of the article.
The point is that the rules are there to promote constructive discussion. Having blatantly false speculation go unchallenged is significantly worse for that than saying "RTFA" – and insisting on “apologise or delete” is completely derailing the conversation.
If all of this is true, it feels like Tesla China employs some people that really should not be part of Tesla. It's probably a nontrivial effort to keep everyone aligned in a company that spans the whole globe.
Which people? The ones that sold the car while claiming it had not been in an accident? The people who want to sue now? I would guess the sales people and lawyers are in different areas of the company.
Could this be a cultural thing at the company or, at least, the part in China?
Remember, Tesla builds cars that you aren't allowed to have non-Tesla folks fix them and Tesla has turned off features in used cars because they didn't think it was bought at a high enough price (even when it was sold used with the features). This has happened in the US.
Sounds like Tesla China is employing people that aligned with company goals....
More likely you have a rose colored picture of what this corporation is about. I am not a Elon hater like many, I actually enjoy is Social media antics..
however Tesla as a company is terrible, from their apple like control over their "platform" to their amazon like labor practices, to their Authoritarian needs to control all aspects of their products...
No it sounds like Tesla China is right inline with Corporate Tesla
Are you implying that Musk didn't know about this lawsuit?
Highly doubt it, since he seems to be exactly the type of CEO who would do this and also he's not the type of CEO without whose approval such a thing could have happened.
Do you seriously think this is out of character for Tesla? When I read the headline I just took it as a given that this order came straight from Elon. Even though that turned out not to be the case, it’s clearly a reflection of the culture he’s built.
That's what you get when you let people without engineering abilities run a tech company. They just gotta find something "useful" to do, and it aint designing a better battery.
Did you know the head of the agency had 0 experience in the industry she now oversees? I did not, but I do b/c I clicked the link, and read the article at that time.
I'm quite interested in public policy and administration, lobbying and the auto industry (PS: I've created several articles over the years about the Dieselgate, for instance). I'm probably strange in your POV but that's okay.
BTW, there's been 3 cases of actual vandalism for 23 edits[0]. And 30,000 pageviews[1]. I'm happy with that.
Given how many big companies seem to get away with minor slaps on the wrist for even bigger frauds, that leadership might know more than us about how those mechanics work.
I can understand disliking the current behaviour of the company but which car company would you approve of?
Presumably not Volkswagen because of the diesel scandal. GM used to engineer in planned obsolescence. I imagine that plenty more of them have dirty secrets too.
I had a friend once who said that Wells Fargo was the devil, but when looking around at other banks, I don't see any who aren't involved in scandals or user-hostile behavior.
Which companies should we use when nearly all of them seem to be corrupt?
I think reasonable move with these sort of companies is to ban them from market for decade or two. People get prison sentences, why shouldn't companies too?
Add this to my file of “Elon & Jeff Need Gas Money”…
I recently met a founder whose $100MM a year LED business was bankrupt by Jeff Bezos first cloning and then shutting down his Amazon business.
Without the government extracting taxes via a violence monoploy to fund gas money for space, guys like Elon and Jeff are forced to do shit like this so that they can fill up the rockets and get off world, man.
Except the only connection between Tesla and SpaceX is the founder, not the money.
And SpaceX is cheaper than all the other rocket companies, so it’s saving the US taxpayer a lot of money.
And SpaceX isn’t even reliant on government contracts any more.
Don’t get me wrong: any world where a billionaire can successfully defend himself in a defamation suit when he calls someone a pedo with no evidence, his company definitely shouldn’t be able to even pull stunts like this, let alone succeed with them.
But that’s a separate issue to “oh no my spaceship”.
That’s the first I’ve heard of that; it would certainly be an update to my general understanding of the world if so, though I don’t think it would be likely to modify my opinion of “does government money for SpaceX have anything to do with Tesla suing for defamation?”
My Facebook background picture is one of the images of that car in near-Earth space from before it left radio contact.
It was Musk’s personal property, chosen in part after being suggested on a Twitter thread by one of his fans, and the alternative was literally a concrete block as that was a test flight and none of the normal customers they went to wanted to risk their stuff for even a free ride.
That sounds implausible. Jalopnik is part of the same cluster as Jezebel, Gawker and Kotaku. Not saying it's not true, but I'd need to see another credible source confirm before I believe it
Sure, but it's all from the guy himself. No indication of follow-up, nor confirmation.
A link to, say, the actual lawsuit on a government website, is confirmation. Tesla saying something like "We do not comment on ongoing litigation" is confirmation.
A link to another news website of dubious provenance, likely the self-same source from which Jalopnik itself got the scoop, is not a credible source. Those news articles are literally just repeating what the guy himself said on social media.
Come on, people. Media literacy and critical thinking is essential. Don't believe something just because it confirms your preconception, even if you hate Tesla, Musk, Pelosi, Trump, whatever, whomever.
Go ahead and downvote if you must. It'd be awesome if you could say why but go off.
It’s usually unbelievably boring to talk about downvotes, but I downvoted this comment. It’s not only incredibly boring but assumes that you’re the only intelligent person who bothers to read critically. Not only is that wrong but it’s tremendously egotistical and again, incredibly boring to read.
You might be right but you could have expressed that in a less ego filled (and thus somewhat interesting) way. This current comment, I’m sorry, but it’s too incredibly boring for anything but downvotes.
I think in general car enthusiasts who enjoy working on their vehicles and modding them are not interested in Tesla's. The general lack of repairability and aftermarket parts drives people like me away. Honestly in my opinion it feels like renting a vehicle. It works for some people, just not my taste. Most of the people I work with would rather tune a diesel truck or work on an old four-banger Honda than ever consider buying a brand new Tesla. for as many jokes as I can make about the Ford Mach e mustang, at least I can get parts for it.
Anyhow a lot of gear heads in the automotive world come from a place of wanting things to enjoy mechanically. To truly own the machine you need to understand the machine to truly understand the machine you need to open the machine.
New media car sites like Jalopnik and The Drive (which has a lot of former Jalopnik writers) are closer to Medium blogs than the NY Times. Sure, there's an editor, but in general the authors just post their own hot takes, and articles on Jalopnik will vary dramatically in slant (and quality) depending on who wrote them.
This does need detailed management analysis from an ethics POV. IF the facts, as stated, are true, I can not think of any US Tesla manager taking this stance.
In fact, if that fact was concealed and the customer lied to, the customer was right.
Now is it possible, in the USA or China for a vehicle to be sold as pure and unsullied? Yes it is - if some one lied to the customer/Tesla that it was unsullied. I think this is illegal in the USA - is it also illegal in China - or business as usual in China? There is a Reddit thread called r/Chinesium which details a legion of low quality items entering into commerce that are unworthy of sale, that should have been rejected at production time or have inherent low quality workmanship.
Thus Tesla needs to rebuild bridges in China, cease this Streisandish litigation and move on, making sure that there is never again a recurrence of any more cases like this.
All this said, have there ever been any cases like this in the US production flow?
I like Tesla, I like Elon, I like the way he acts and thinks, and I suspect he will deal with this with some sort of managerial imperative, might I say ramrod? I am not sure how much managerial control is exercised over Tesla China by Tesla US?
Managers and the entire management culture in China seems to place a high degree of credence to 'face', or appearance. This leads to managers hiding errors instead of facing them and solving them - a bad practice.
