Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[neroden]

I'd like to provide some context here. The reason doxxing got a bad name is that it was used to harass and threaten people by sending them harassing phone calls, showing up at their house, etc.

Finding out and publishing someone's *name and background* is usually legit. Just don't publish their current home address or phone number.

Most of the people who were "doxxed" in particularly egregious, abusive cases had *already published* their name and background *themselves*.

If someone is concealing their identity for obviously legitimate reasons -- like "I have reason to believe the mob/the government/my ex is out to get me" -- that's one thing. "Montana Skeptic" is concealing his identity for blatantly illegitimate reasons -- to illegally manipulate the stock market.

While you should not publish his home address or phone number, if you discover that he is named so-and-so, is the heir to a small oil fortune, went to such-and-such university on an oil company scholarship, and worked for ExxonMobil, that's a completely appropriate set of things to publish. (Given the number of locations ExxonMobil has, it wouldn't even reveal what city he lives in.)

The really suspicious thing is that SeekingAlpha claims to check real identities. (SA is not ZeroHedge with its thousand Tyler Durdens.) But they make a special exception for this dude.

If detective work discovers obviously undisclosed conflicts of interest by "Montana Skeptic", I'd probably submit it to Seeking Alpha first, wait, then submit the dossier to the SEC, wait, then submit it to a news organization.

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

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.

I don't see identity and privacy being the same. Person has all the right to privacy for bunch of legitimate reasons (what do I do, where do I live etc), and very few legitimate reasons to hide identity (who I am).
Anonymity just become shortcut in the Internet age, because it was the only way to get people to sign when Internet was new and young. It's lead to myriad of bad behaviours, as there is no personal accountability.

 

[The Blue Owl]

I don't see identity and privacy being the same. Person has all the right to privacy for bunch of legitimate reasons (what do I do, where do I live etc), and very few legitimate reasons to hide identity (who I am).
Anonymity just become shortcut in the Internet age, because it was the only way to get people to sign when Internet was new and young. It's lead to myriad of bad behaviours, as there is no personal accountability.

Well, actually this is a good point. Based on the reactions here, I think I'm losing this argument and I'm slowly coming around to think that it's probably for a good reason.

I treasure anonymity for those who choose it on the internet. There are so many reasons for someone to want it, especially these days. But maybe one forfeits the expectation that they will stay anonymous when they go as far as Montana has done to spread lies (with an abundance of smugness, I might add). Anonymous, good. Anonymous, smug, and a liar... let's say maybe I won't shed too many tears if he's identified.

(Maybe.)

 

[JRP3]

It's lead to myriad of bad behaviours, as there is no personal accountability.

On the other hand it allows speaking truth to power without fear of repercussion.

 

[The Blue Owl]

On the other hand it allows speaking truth to power without fear of repercussion.

This is one of the main reasons I advocate for not attacking anonymity. I'm really conflicted about it. It has been inextricably connected with freedom of speech in the U.S., every since the Federalist Papers. I know Montana is no founding father, except maybe for the club of rabid Tesla haters, but that's the thing with principles. They defend the unsavory, too.

OTOH, this is not a court of law, it's the internet, for chrissakes, and if one chooses to attack and provoke people, especially when backed by a strong profit motive, one might have to face the music. I would never participate in a such an unmasking, and I still encourage people not to do it, but it's clear to me now that reasonable people can disagree and I no longer condemn the effort (not that loudly, anyway).

Peace.

 

[The Blue Owl]

IThe really suspicious thing is that SeekingAlpha claims to check real identities. (SA is not ZeroHedge with its thousand Tyler Durdens.) But they make a special exception for this dude.

What do you mean? If they have such a policy, I would think they do know who he is, they just don't make him sign his articles with his real name. They allow others to publish pseudonymously. ValueAnalyst here is ValueAnalyst on seekingalpha. I'm assuming his real name is not Analyst, Value.

 

[vgrinshpun]

It appears that Montana Skeptic habitually makes things up as he goes. Taking him to task on false lemon law claim in the latest Grant's podcast he participated:

Vladimir Grinshpun on Twitter

 

[The Blue Owl]

It appears that Montana Skeptic habitually makes things up as he goes. Taking him to task on false lemon law claim in the latest Grant's podcast he participated:

Vladimir Grinshpun on Twitter

Just posted this interview on the General Discussion thread. Worth a listen.

 

[WarpedOne]

We, 'bulls' are stunned looking at 253... imagine the shorts sweating ...

 

[vgrinshpun]

Just posted this interview on the General Discussion thread. Worth a listen.

Yes, I did listen to it yesterday. Surreal.

 

[PeterK]

Here’s a nice Forbes Contributor FUD piece about cobalt, with few facts and of course no mention that Tesla and Panasonic have drastically reduced the amount of cobalt in Model 3 batteries. It also claims that cobalt supply issues contributed to battery production delays. Not your typical anti-Tesla source, however, may be just aiming for click through to the author’s site, where the exact same piece is posted.

Tesla's Model 3 Production Goals May Hit Cobalt Speed Bump

 

[winfield100]

Just posted this interview on the General Discussion thread. Worth a listen.

It was quite inteiguing when the interviewer commented how "youthful" Montana looked after 30 years practivcng law.
the one picture i think i saw of him, he looked like a "paunchy" 40 year old (paunchy = man baby gut), but MS is washed up has been anyway regarding TSLA anyway so matters not at all, water under the bridge, eh

 

[JRP3]

Here is a fun one from MF, layoffs and the end of the Home Depot deal mean Tesla is shutting down it's solar business
Tesla's Solar Business Is in Trouble

 

[neroden]

What do you mean? If they have such a policy, I would think they do know who he is, they just don't make him sign his articles with his real name.

Yes, that. But they also don't enforce their terms and conditions against him. He violates SA's terms repeatedly and gets away with it.

 

[EinSV]

Business insider published a superficially chipper article about a Model X road trip that is full of misleading range anxiety FUD, which seems to be a popular genre these days.

I took a Tesla on a 400-mile drive on California's Highway 1 — and while it was hard, I'm convinced it's the future of road trips

The author starts out complimentary about the Model X but then focuses on how incredibly inconvenient it supposedly is to charge on a 400 mile trip from the SF Bay Area to Big Sur.

To make this really easy trip seem difficult she does basically everything wrong.

First, she charges to 100% in the Monterey Supercharger on her way down and it takes an hour (why 100%? -- not necessary, especially with the Model X 100D she was driving).

She then camps at Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park and complains about charging at only 2 miles per hour on a 120V charger. Why not just stop at a Supercharger on the way back?

Then, on the return trip, she roams around Capitola and Santa Cruz looking for a public charger (um, Plugshare?). She can't find one, gives up and charges at a Tesla Supercharger, which she should have done in the first place, if she needed to charge again at all.

She doesn't provide all of the trip details, but she probably could have charged once at the Monterey Supercharger on her way back from Big Sur and been good for the whole trip. At most two quick Supercharger stops would have done the trick. Then she could have written a story that was actually informative for her readers instead of FUD.

 

[Alketi]

Business Insider is a click-house located in a circus tent.

A couple years ago Matthew DeBord was loaned a P90D, which he used to take his family on a camping trip.

1. He deliberately didn't charge the car fully.
2. He ignored the warnings to charge.
3. And then he nearly ran out of gas ... er, electricity (as he put it), and stranded his family while he waited for a 120V to trickle charge.
4. Also .. no mention of the P90D's performance.

Pictures have all been deleted, presumably to protect the innocent (his family) from the stupidity (his).
We took a Tesla Model S on a road trip and learned the hard way how it's different from every other car

 

[sundaymorning]

Business Insider is a click-house located in a circus tent.

A couple years ago Matthew DeBord was loaned a P90D, which he used to take his family on a camping trip.

1. He deliberately didn't charge the car fully.
2. He ignored the warnings to charge.
3. And then he nearly ran out of gas ... er, electricity (as he put it), and stranded his family while he waited for a 120V to trickle charge.
4. Also .. no mention of the P90D's performance.

Pictures have all been deleted, presumably to protect the innocent (his family) from the stupidity (his).
We took a Tesla Model S on a road trip and learned the hard way how it's different from every other car

Thanks for the rundown and summary. I won’t give them the click bait.

 

[wdolson]

In summary: one Business Insider reporter goes overboard charging too much and the other not enough, then both complain about their problems.

If you're trying to take a roadtrip in a Bolt, even in California you might be a bit challenged finding decent charging if you get away from the major transportation corridors. With any Tesla, you shouldn't have any problems unless you get way off the beaten path. Nobody is making any EV roadtrips to Dead Horse, AK, but ICE road trips there are rare.

 

[UnknownSoldier]

It's rare for the real "prestige" newspapers to ever report on Tesla, and yet here's a wild card from The Washington Post of all things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-and-suspicions-grow/?utm_term=.eaa007650818

 

[pz1975]

It's rare for the real "prestige" newspapers to ever report on Tesla, and yet here's a wild card from The Washington Post of all things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-and-suspicions-grow/?utm_term=.eaa007650818

Entire article is slanted negative.