My comment to CR at their article, after cancelling my online subscription. I've sort of appreciated their work at times, but they've always seemed to have this unmerited sense of self-importance:
_____
The critic invariably assumes criticism of others carries no responsibility for himself. However this is not always the case. For example, 'busybodies' freely voice their opinions about others' problems, and how they should solve them, often causing more harm than good in the process.
I see this happening in this article. Consumer Reports self-righteously takes a position of 'moral superiority', and uses its platform of 8 million subscribers to carelessly advocate for the diabling of Tesla's Autopilot, a system that has been shown to avoid serious accidents, even perhaps deaths, while it has not yet been proven to cause any serious harm.
Most people are instinctively suspicious of 'moral superiorists', because they most often act like bulls in a chinashop, mindlessly asserting their own self-importance to cause endless difficlties, and even real harm, to others.
So I ask this: Given that Tesla, even if it were to disable Autopilot as prescribed by the lofty Consumer Reports, will go on recording the data from its fleet of cars even when Autopilot is not engaged. Is Consumer reports prepared to take full resoponsibilities for the deaths those disabled cars may cause in the future? - dealths that may not have occured if not for this fear-mongering advice by Consumer Reprorts? No. Of course not. What busybody ever believes his advice could be at fault or cause harm?
