10 ms·
Gatekeep, gaslight, girlboss The official policy to deprive customers and victims of information as much as possible is shocking from the standpoint of being f
by advael 3y ago
Gatekeep, gaslight, girlboss
The official policy to deprive customers and victims of information as much as possible is shocking from the standpoint of being flagrantly, cynically customer-hostile to the point of probable illegality, but it's right out of both Musk's normal playbook and that of his erstwhile colleagues at e.g. Paypal
For me, cars cross a very key danger threshold, which I express like this: "I am trusting my life to this device by using it. I must trust that it will not malfunction". We are in an era where cars have computer overrides, so that standard needs to be applied to the security and reliability of the computer inside. We are also in an era where computers sold by corporate robber-barons (IE most major corporations) will routinely not merely malfunction, but explicitly, intentionally betray the interests of their end-users for increasingly marginal gains for the company
Even if you trust the company that sold your car's computer, do you trust their security? All their employees? When we are putting computers in devices, like cars, where them operating as expected is life-or-death, those computers need to be auditable by independent experts and controllable by the end-user. To be clear, that unambiguously refers to the person or persons trusting - with their lives - that car operating safely and responding to their commands. We need to mandate open-source, user-owned computers in devices this dangerous, period.
- jacquesm 3y agoThe bigger problem is that I am trusting my life to you using it. This goes way beyond defective product and normal risk, the fact that these things happen endangers everybody on the road, not just those that decided to throw in their lot with Tesla.
- advael 3y agoAlso a very good point, which makes an even stronger case for throwing the regulatory kitchen sink at this bullshit
- panarky 3y agoIf I refuse to use a product because I think it's too dangerous, but I die anyway because of your use of the dangerous product, does my estate sue you personally for gross negligence, or must my estate sue the maker of the product? Naturally if my estate sues you personally, your defense would be that you didn't know the product was dangerous. Perhaps if the whistleblower's leak is widely publicized, that would weaken your defense. Certainly the leak should weaken the maker's ability to claim they didn't know.
- otterley 3y agoIn the U.S., product-liability law allows you to sue the product's manufacturer (and everyone else in its supply chain including retailer); you don't have to sue the driver under some sort of "negligent ownership" theory. (IAAL, but this is greatly simplified -- consult a licensed attorney.)
- mattigames 3y agoExcept guns of course, because... America.
- otterley 3y agoThe argument that a firearm that kills or injures someone when used correctly is a defective product is a difficult one to make because, well, that's what it was designed to do. However, if a poorly-designed or -built firearm blows up in the user's hand, then that would probably be considered defective, and the injured person might well prevail on a defective-product liability claim.
- mattigames 3y agoMaybe companies should design new car models specifically to kill, that way when it happens they can truthfully claim it was exactly what it was designed to do, it would work regardless if it happens by accident or intentional as long as the buyer is not the victim, exactly like with guns.
- redeeman 3y ago[flagged]
- redeeman 3y agoyou are being extremely misleading and agendaed here. Either you have been brainwashed by propaganda, or you are intentionally doing it. You cannot sue Mercedes if someone decides to use a car they manufactured to ram into people on the sidewalk. Well, Maybe you can sue, but you can absolutely not win. On the same line of logic, you absolutely can not sue Walmart if your relative gets stabbed by a knife they sold, Had manufactured, or similar. And then along the same line of logic, you cannot sue a gun manufacturer/dealer if someone decides to use a gun they sold/manufactured to harm someone. Guns dont kill, people kill. IF however a gun manufacturer ran advertising suggesting people buy their guns to shoot up farmers markets, schools etc. Or if gun sellers ran advertising with subliminal messages urging people to whack their neighbor, well then you absolutely CAN sue them, and would probably have a good case. More similarly to this case here, IF a gun manufacturer made a gun that is obviously defective, leading to injury/death, and you had a leaker come and show evidence they knew about it, and didnt care, well then you would probably have a good case aswell.
- jjoonathan 3y agoTesla self-driving is better than a bad human driver. There are loads of bad human drivers on the road. Someone has to be liable, but I don't really care if it falls to Musk or a Musk simp. I do care if we kick yet another key technology out of the US only to have to rent it back years later when someone else picks up the torch. Let's not do that.
- vgt 3y agoI am not sure I agree with your assessment. Last time I was in a FSD Tesla, it repeatedly tried to run red lights and didn't know how to merge lanes on a freeway...
- jjoonathan 3y agoI don't own one, but I watch a video on youtube every time one of these threads comes around and it seems to be pretty good these days. Your examples are bad. People do both of those things all the time.
- plagiarist 3y agoThis is delusional. "It's fine because I watched some videos and some irresponsible people often drive recklessly anyway."
- jjoonathan 3y ago[flagged]
- Spooky23 3y agoNHSTA is infected by the woke virus. Elon knows what you need. If your car crashes into a wall or whatever, it’s probably your fault anyway.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
- 99_00 3y agoWhat information is Tesla withholding that they should release to these customers and do other automakers release this information to customers?
- nickff 3y ago>"The official policy to deprive customers and victims of information as much as possible is shocking from the standpoint of being flagrantly, cynically customer-hostile to the point of probable illegality, but it's right out of both Musk's normal playbook and that of his erstwhile colleagues at e.g. Paypal" It seems like you're holding Tesla to a higher standard than any other automaker. Which other automakers reveal similar information willingly? Many (or likely most) other automakers have made deceptive and/or dangerous products, in just about every manner imaginable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_system_fires,_recalls,_and_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_system_fires,_... https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/22/12007862/fca-jeep-grand-cherokee-gear-lever-recall-anton-yelchin https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/22/12007862/fca-jeep-grand-c...
- 99_00 3y agoIt's not even clear to me what information is being withheld.
- reaperducer 3y agoIt's not even clear to me what information is being withheld. You read the whole 100GB already? I'm impressed with your speed-reading skills!
- 99_00 3y agoWhat point are you trying to make?
- mschuster91 3y ago> It seems like you're holding Tesla to a higher standard than any other automaker. Other automakers don't go and scream around in their advertising (or in the antics of their founder) to the degree Tesla does.
- astrange 3y ago
- devindotcom 3y ago>Gatekeep, gaslight, girlboss girlboss...?
- theodric 3y agoIt's...a thing. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gaslight-gatekeep-girlboss https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gaslight-gatekeep-girlboss
- orpheansodality 3y agowhy is it being applied to a tesla whistleblower post though
- input_sh 3y agoIt's being applied to Tesla's behaviour, not whistleblower's. As in Tesla's official policy is to gaslight you and gatekeep the information.
- birdyrooster 3y agoBecause Tesla is femme and they are respecting its gender.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mkaic 3y agoThe phrase "gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss" is a tongue-in-cheek expression sarcastically praising the recipient while not actually endorsing them or their behavior. Kind of like "nice work, genius /s". "Girlboss" started showing up 2-3 years ago and was popularized by TikTok. It was originally used as a casual, semi-ironic term of respect for awesome women, but as Gen Z is prone to do, we immediately covered it in 5 layers of irony and now it can range from a mostly genuine compliment to 100% sardonic, depending on context. Source: I'm a zoomer who was active on TikTok during the pandemic :P
- eterevsky 3y agoWhen a manufacturer is selling millions of cars, I think it's better to judge their safety using statistics rather than some qualitative reasoning. Are Teslas measurably less safe than other cars? I.e. is the accident probability per km driven on a Tesla higher than on another car? I haven't seen any data suggesting that, but I'm happy to be corrected.
- forty 3y agoThe number of accident might be lower (no idea) but still, If I'm responsible of killing/injuring someone with my car, I'll pay the consequences. If Tesla is responsible of killing/injuring someone with their car (when they drive through the autopilot), they must also pay the price (probably damages or jail depending of the situation).
- ajross 3y agoHow is that any different from any other product from any other manufacturer, though? Tort law has a thousand year history in our culture. Is there something specific about Tesla that needs something new? I mean, what you say is sorta specious. Of course that's true, it's always true. The interesting question is "are the cars dangerous?". And the answer seems to be a pretty emphatic no, at this point. So instead everyone wants to argue about abstractions ("they're still liable") or absolutisms ("no failure is acceptable"). And that seems increasingly counterproductive, and frankly to have more to do with the somewhat questionable mental stability of the CEO than to the behavior of the actual products.
- Spooky23 3y agoTort law requires evidence. The only entity with actual evidence of what the car did is the entity who is the defendant in the litigation. All of the elements of the Tesla business model like no repairs, no dealers, etc are all about maintaining that control.
- ilyt 3y agoWell, it is a bit different. FSD theoretically can get driver into bad situation, then beep at them "I can't handle that", and as long as beeping was early enough that's no fault of Tesla even if the start of the event chain was caused by it. Also Full Self Driving is extremely deceptive name for feature that does not do that
- adamwong246 3y ago"FOSS self-driving cars" is a dream so bold I dare not dream it. In some other timeline, we have had an "internet of roads" built on cooperative standards. Instead we have trendy death-traps that make fart noises sold as status symbols.
- api 3y agoThere’s a company called comma that has something close.
- adamwong246 3y agoDesigning Robo-vehicles and the infra to support them requires "real" engineering, not SV style fail-fast "engineering". The task should be left to the government, along the lines of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System.
- josefx 3y agoSomehow I get OpenSSL vibes from that description. Everyone would use it, nobody would pay for maintenance and the result would be billions of tons of steel controlled by a buggy vulnerable mess filled to the brim with a nightmarish labyrinth of #ifdefs and hacks ensuring compatibility with every embedded chipset that has ever existed.
- prepend 3y agoI still think OpenSSL is a massive success story. It’s used everywhere and it’s good. Not perfect, and has serious bugs but it’s been used by millions for decades. Even software that costs billions has zero days. We could be in a world where everyone pays RSA and still have massive vulnerabilities. We could be so lucky if all software ra exactly like OpenSSL.
- varenc 3y agoA self-managed FOSS level 5 self-driving system, where you're not legally required to be actively monitoring it and ready to take over, seems very very hard. We should require a huge and lengthy validation process for true autonomous level 5 self driving so keep others safe. It seems possible for an open source self driving system to go through this validation for one particular build of the system. But the moment I start modifying my own system (say, increasing `DRIVING_AGGRESSION` by 10 percent), it's no longer the same system that was verified as safe. But even if personal modification is out of the question, the safety verification process needs to be so thorough and costly it seems difficult for anyone but a major for-profit company to go through it.
- canadianfella 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tudorw 3y agoI prefer the bus or a walk anyway, who wants to spend time on silly smelly cars anyway? it's so 1990's
- garbagecoder 3y ago[flagged]
- geraldwhen 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway2214 3y ago[flagged]
- advael 3y agoBullshit, full stop. We live in a society with deep dependency chains on technology we can't possibly understand as individuals, that much is true But all of those technologies are subject to independent auditing and regulation to make up for that lack of verifiability on an individual level. It is technologically feasible to apply that kind of standard to computer technologies, and in fact I would argue that it's much easier than it is for a lot of other kinds of technology we rely on. That our willingness at a political level to do so is lacking is a corruption issue, not a feasibility one.
- throwaway2214 3y agowhy do you think if we can not understand the dependency chain, the regulators and the auditors can?
- advael 3y agoThe entire point of an independent audit is to throw an expert at the technologies in question at the point of the supply chain they are tasked with auditing in order to better understand it than a layperson could and make an assessment that provides the public with the benefit of their expertise. Not everyone can be an expert on everything, but experts can check each other's work and report on it publicly.
- vikramkr 3y agoBecause we don't have the time needed to do the audit nor necessarily the access, while auditors and regulators have both because of legal backing and the fact that it's their full time job
- Finnucane 3y agoWe don’t trust the drum on the washing machine. That’s why organizations like Underwriters Laboratory exist.
- liendolucas 3y agoI'll go a bit further... Do we really need computers on four wheels? Can't we just have simple electric vehicles without all the high-tech? No distracting screens, no computer for other than just governing the electric engine, no fancy car locks, and so on. I don't understand why we need to put so much technology in a vehicle. Honestly, it seems to me that is absolutely unnecessary tech, ridiculous. I'd like to have a vehicle like the ones 15 or 20 years ago but electric: analog indicators, physical buttons, etc. And a car that you can actually REPAIR by yourself without having to be an electronic engineer or something alike. There was a post about someone that owned a Tesla car and managed to repair it (if I recall it correctly) for under 500 bucks when Tesla was trying to charge above 10000 USD. All this high-tech also means that we're doomed and at the mercy of car companies for any kind of maintenance. It seems that we're heading to the same dead end as with mobile phone industry: zero control over them. If that's the bright future that awaits us, I'll take public transport as much as I can.
- vinyl7 3y agoIts not good enough to just sell a product. You have to sell a life style, an ecosystem, subscriptions and upgrades. Selling a simple product was a pre-WEF phenomenon
- inconceivable 3y agoyou could buy a used car and convert it to EV. that 1. removes an ICE off the road 2. saves on new mfr costs and 3. is a worthy hacker endeavour and/or 4. supports a local business of course if you simply hate cars and want everyone to ride the train or bikes you'll find a million reasons to not do this. good luck with that.
- carstenhag 3y agoNot really. It's a very manual task. Can only be scaled if you ship thousand units of the same model to a single factory. Compatibility has to be evaluated per model. Structural integrity has to be preserved, batteries are usually located at different spots than motors are. Of course you can say "here are 4 pros - if you say anything bad you want the world to suffer from cars" but you know that this is not how we can get to a solution.
- ilyt 3y ago> Gatekeep, gaslight, girlboss "girlboss" ? Care to elaborate ? I don't exactly know what you mean here
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hammock 3y ago[flagged]
- lost_tourist 3y agoI'm the opposite. Show me where there has been a major issue security wise that caused a car to fail in a statistically significant fashion over old issues with cars and for comparison to simply driving to work. I suspect it is miniscule and in the noise. As long as that's true I'm not going to freak out over computers in cars.