Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[ValueAnalyst]

This morning's FT Alphaville article talks about Elon purposefully talking TSLA down before he takes Tesla private via SpaceX at a lower price. I won't link to the article, but if true, Elon is doing a horrendous job at it:

 

[SkepticMontana]

A quick note. I can inform those interested that we are booking good progress with the website for "The Montana Skeptic Dossier"
The domain was reserved and a very basic placeholder page can be seen now at http://www.MontanaSkeptic.com

Hope you all like the name

 

[The Blue Owl]

A quick note. I can inform those interested that we are booking good progress with the website for "The Montana Skeptic Dossier"
The domain was reserved and a very basic placeholder page can be seen now at http://www.MontanaSkeptic.com

Hope you all like the name

I don’t like this effort. Anonymity should be sacrosant as long as no laws are broken (and then it should be a matter for law enforcement). Internet mobs unmasking identities make me very uncomfortable.

 

[JRP3]

Yeah I'm a bit divided on the matter myself. He's really annoying but doxing isn't cool.

 

[schonelucht]

Agree too. Doxing is not cool. Please ban the account that is openly calling for this.

 

[winfield100]

Agree too. Doxing is not cool. Please ban the account that is openly calling for this.

i'm extremely hesitant about this. MS is history anyway. i think it should not be done for many reasons

 

[Curt Renz]

First post, and indeed from a brand new account.

Recently the person hiding behind Montana Skeptic has become more personal and vicious in his attacks of Elon and Tesla. Some of his recent tweets can even be characterized as libelous. A small group has decided that it was time to find out who is behind Montana Skeptic and to find out what his motivations are.

We will share our search and our findings on a website: "The Montana Skeptic Dossier" that is currently being build. Those interested can follow our search on a twitter channel @SkepticMontana. Feel free to share this with tesla investors who are also tired of Montana Skeptic's anonymous attacks and on Teslamotor threads as on Reddit.

I spent the vast majority of my life in the pre-internet era in which everyone was expected to properly reveal their identities in communications. It forces people to accept full responsibility for what they say or write, and makes their audiences more receptive and trusting. Hence the usage here of my real name, photograph, and the completeness of the personal information in my TMC profile. Of course everyone knew who I was when I performed on-air in television and wrote a book.

Nevertheless, even though I have concerns, I realize that nowadays I must accept the usage of pseudonyms by others on internet message boards. But I draw the line at authors publishing full articles. The anonymous person who is the subject here writes articles for a rather dubious but somewhat widely followed publication. In a comment there I once suggested to him/her that she/he could enhance his/her credibility by revealing her/his identity. He/she then tweeted to her/his friends that I had “attacked” him/her. Since then I’ve simply ignored her/him as someone irrelevant. Others here may want to do the same.

 

[ggr]

Generally speaking, I'm against doxing. There are plenty of posters here who engage in things off-site that I personally find at least distasteful, often more than that, but I respect their rights to free speech and pseudonymity. So, speaking as a moderator, I'm not going to do anything. Above my pay grade. I suggest taking it up with @doug or @Doug_G if you want a high level decision.

Speaking as me again, I think it is highly likely that Montana Skeptic has participated in illegal market manipulation. That still doesn't justify vigilante justice, but it might help a lot to be able to file a complaint against a real person.

 

[Electroman]

I really don't like people who write blogs and articles under a hidden name. How do you know the credibility, the connections and the motivations the author has? Are these guys indirectly paid by Koch mafia, UAW or a bunch of shorters?

The same goes for bulls too, atleast bulls are not actively trying to kill a company. On the other hand these guys are actively attempting to ruin jobs and people lives by spreading lies and FUD.

Let them come clean as to who they are and what their credentials are. Or let them be exposed.

I will follow SkepticMontana.

 

[winfield100]

I really don't like people who write blogs and articles under a hidden name. How do you know the credibility, the connections and the motivations the author has? Are these guys indirectly paid by Koch mafia, UAW or a bunch of shorters?

The same goes for bulls too, atleast bulls are not actively trying to kill a company. On the other hand these guys are actively attempting to ruin jobs and people lives by spreading lies and FUD.

Let them come clean as to who they are and what their credentials are. Or let them be exposed.

I will follow SkepticMontana.

whom actually is skepticmontana? an anonymous writer from somewhere. I thnk montana skeptic is becoming washed up and a non-entity, useless dregs, so why go after him. I rarely frequent SA as they are useless for actionable investment advice except in the paid portions. what is the anonymous posters motivations? i may follow, but at a cautious distance and keep my malware and virus protections at "red alert" levels. im extremely suspicious, as all should be. this could just be a "honey pot" for the unwary

 

[AudubonB]

MODERATOR INPUT
I also have some qualms about this exercise. However, considering it in toto, I agree with Curt Renz that a person creating the sort of full-essay blog posts is one who automatically is suspect if uses a pseudonym. As with Curt, I also use my own name and anyone needing to learn more about me need only look at my profile.

Almost as an aside, but in fact bearing on this subject: As a moderator, there is an automatic bias toward leaning on a poster...or leaning toward leniency....as a function of whether that poster likewise is open or closed with respect to his or her name.

(Difficult to type accurately with three limbs tied behind my back. Hope meaning comes across!)

 

[MacRocket]

Here’s a way for us all to get better information about Tesla facts and media FUD.

Tech savi TMC members who have a little spare time you might like to consider helping Elon and Tesla in their mission in a fun way.

TMC member DurandalAI has started a really good site called teslaFUD.com. The idea is to have a trusted place where people can go to get the truth on any tesla related topic.
Durandal and his small band are looking for help to develop this site further and also for contributions to the sites content. Help here would be greatly appreciated, PM to DurandalAI if this is your thing.

Hop on line and check out teslaFUD.com. It’s early days for this site and already it is showing great promise. With TMC members extensive knowledge about all things Tesla we should be able to develope a world class site.
Come on, what are you waiting for, PM to DurandalAI

 

[The Blue Owl]

MODERATOR INPUT
I also have some qualms about this exercise. However, considering it in toto, I agree with Curt Renz that a person creating the sort of full-essay blog posts is one who automatically is suspect if uses a pseudonym. As with Curt, I also use my own name and anyone needing to learn more about me need only look at my profile.

Almost as an aside, but in fact bearing on this subject: As a moderator, there is an automatic bias toward leaning on a poster...or leaning toward leniency....as a function of whether that poster likewise is open or closed with respect to his or her name.

(Difficult to type accurately with three limbs tied behind my back. Hope meaning comes across!)

Here is the thing.

Montana Skeptic is, as far as I am concerned, a piece of s**t. But unmasking his identity serves no justifiable purpose. If someone actively set out to identify another member of this board, asked others for help, and was met with cheers, I would hope his account would be banned. The same should apply when the target is not a member.

First, it is directly against the board rules:

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this site to post any material which is [...] invasive of a person’s privacy [...]​

and:

You agree not to use the service to:
[...]
m. collect or store personal data about other users​

As moderators, when you decide not to do anything other than express ‘some qualms’, you miss the opportunity to do the right thing. The time to stand for principle is precisely when it would be really convenient to wink and look the other way. Do not become complicit through inaction.

Second, doxxing the deplorables doesn’t help Tesla one bit. One doesn’t need to know his real name to conclude that Montana’s articles are garbage. If this effort succeeds, it cedes the moral high ground to the FUDsters. Do we really want to give them the opportunity to scream ‘Elon Musk’s hordes team up to reveal the identity of long-time critic?’ Because this time, they would be right.

Finally, and most importantly, vigilantism is not justice. It’s wrong.

Don’t participate in it.

 

[The Blue Owl]

But I draw the line at authors publishing full articles. The anonymous person who is the subject here writes articles for a rather dubious but somewhat widely followed publication. In a comment there I once suggested to him/her that she/he could enhance his/her credibility by revealing her/his identity. He/she then tweeted to her/his friends that I had “attacked” him/her. Since then I’ve simply ignored her/him as someone irrelevant. Others here may want to do the same.

If by 'drawing the line' you mean you reserve the right to call him out publicly and then ignore him, you are perfectly right. It would have been helpful if you had also explicitly stated your stance on doxxing, which is the main point of this (unfortunate) discussion.

 

[EinSV]

I think the needs of investors to understand the bias and hidden agendas of prominent financial authors outweighs any individual privacy interest they might have.

Frankly, I find the whole phenomenon of anonymous "analysts" publishing articles that show up in investors' newsfeeds while hiding their identities and without disclosing facts that show their bias (such as interests in the oil and gas industry) very troubling and rife for mischief.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn between ordinary people sharing information on the internet and people who repeatedly author articles and intentionally seek to place themselves at the center of investors' attention. Someone like Montana Skeptic clearly falls into the latter category.

This is no different than "public figures" who give up some of their rights under privacy and libel laws by "thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Public figure - Wikipedia I think that is right on point for the Montana Skeptics of the world.

 

[The Blue Owl]

I think the needs of investors to understand the bias and hidden agendas of prominent financial authors outweighs any individual privacy interest they might have.

Frankly, I find the whole phenomenon of anonymous "analysts" publishing articles that show up in investors' newsfeeds while hiding their identities and without disclosing facts that show their bias (such as interests in the oil and gas industry) very troubling and rife for mischief.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn between ordinary people sharing information on the internet and people who repeatedly author articles and intentionally seek to place themselves at the center of investors' attention. Someone like Montana Skeptic clearly falls into the latter category.

This is no different than "public figures" who give up some of their rights under privacy and libel laws by "thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Public figure - Wikipedia I think that is right on point for the Montana Skeptics of the world.

That Holman Jenkins Jr., Tim Higgins, or Cory Johnson are biased in favour of fossil fuel interests is apparent in their dishonest discourse. Their real names are irrelevant. The needs of investors to understand the bias and hidden agendas are better served by posting the truth about Tesla, not by internet mobs revealing identities.

 

[Esme Es Mejor]

I think the needs of investors to understand the bias and hidden agendas of prominent financial authors outweighs any individual privacy interest they might have.

Frankly, I find the whole phenomenon of anonymous "analysts" publishing articles that show up in investors' newsfeeds while hiding their identities and without disclosing facts that show their bias (such as interests in the oil and gas industry) very troubling and rife for mischief.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn between ordinary people sharing information on the internet and people who repeatedly author articles and intentionally seek to place themselves at the center of investors' attention. Someone like Montana Skeptic clearly falls into the latter category.

This is no different than "public figures" who give up some of their rights under privacy and libel laws by "thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Public figure - Wikipedia I think that is right on point for the Montana Skeptics of the world.

I think there’s no reason to divulge his real name or any personally identifiable information. If you discover that he has worked for an oil/gas company, or is managing the funds of an anti-EV company, it seems fair to disclose that, as long as it isn’t specific enough to identify him as an individual.

 

[Cartegena]

Speaking as me again, I think it is highly likely that Montana Skeptic has participated in illegal market manipulation.

While I think you are attributing far too much power to an amateur author on a relatively inconsequential investment website, can you explain how the illegal market manipulation works? Perhaps it can be deployed in the opposite direction?

 

[ggr]

While I think you are attributing far too much power to an amateur author on a relatively inconsequential investment website, can you explain how the illegal market manipulation works? Perhaps it can be deployed in the opposite direction?

Deployed in either direction would still be illegal. Basically using false allegations to influence the stock price, either by pump-and-dump, or short selling then starting frivolous lawsuits, would be examples.

 

[defc0n]

In regards to anonymity on the internet and the implications of such, I defer to John Gabriel's Greater Internet ****wad Theory: Mod: image deleted for profanity, against rules of service. --ggr