24 ms·
Maybe Tesla was actually innocent and they are counting on the Streisand effect. It’s a stretch.
by natchy 5y ago
Maybe Tesla was actually innocent and they are counting on the Streisand effect. It’s a stretch.
- kryptozinc 5y agoOh look - Elon's bootlicker.
- celticninja 5y agoperhaps 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. So yes, this is the streisand effect in effect.
- nefitty 5y agoRTFA means "read the fucking article". You've broken a rule of Hacker News. Always assume everyone read the article. Please edit your comment with an apology or delete it.
- mihaic 5y agoI can understand the comment: when the poster contradict the article in such a direct way, I'd also assume they haven't read the article.
- nefitty 5y agoThat's not the point...
- wizzwizz4 5y agoThe 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.
- neogodless 5y agoThe guidelines are specifically this: > 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.
- alistairSH 5y agoTheir own documentation (provided in the initial sales fraud case) showed the damages.
- mdoms 5y agoThe courts have already made a determination on this. Tesla themselves admitted in court that the car was accident damaged.