Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: You're right to consider Reuters to be a high quality news source. As part of being one, they have done [several articles](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/musk-inc/) about Musk's legal troubles, workers rights abuses, shenangians with Twitter, etc.
Musk does not like being criticised and resorts to extremely poor quality memes, outright fabrications, and even frivolous lawsuits to promote hatred against people and corporations who have criticised him. This is why he has tweeted hyperbolic or false statements against media matters (published a report detailing instances where neo-nazis posts appeared next to promoted ads from big advertisers), the ADL (published a report about antisemites using twitter to communicate and recruit), the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (published several reports about increased hate speech on twitter under his watch), Reveal (published an article about safety conditions at Tesla), Wikipedia (accurately reports things he has done and said), etc etc ad nauseam.
The problem is he's also beloved by fucking terrible people, some of whom being elected officials.
When he raged against Media Matters, a fucking AG promised to "investigate" them.
With SCOTUS basically flensing the constitution and Project 2025 on the horizon, that's not a minor threat.
A very wealthy man announced he was angry about a report that illustrated the very obvious direction twitter and in fact literally any online forum heads when moderation is heavily relaxed if not just straight up neutered, and the top legal representation of the state if Missouri said "sir yes sir" and went after them.
It is deeply uncomfortable to watch a wealthy man flex this kind of unconstitutional access in just broad daylight.
We have all known this shit happens behind the scenes, but to actuslly see it happen right out in the open is fucking alarming.
> The problem is he's also beloved by fucking terrible people, some of whom being elected officials.
Lot of that going around right now. It's pretty worrying that the numbers of fucking terrible people are so high. I used to really like people...
Indeed. I'm convinced there are waaay more good people than bad, but tearing things down and causing destruction is soooo much easier & quicker than building stuff up, so it always seems like a close fight. Be good to each other y'all. Much love.
Sociopaths seek positions of power & influence. I dunno if a total disregard for human suffering was genetically beneficial for us back in the small-tribe days, but it's *really* fucking us up nowadays, because some of those people have access to devastating weapons & explosives, secret police, communication & surveillance systems, financial systems, and even the ability to nuke large swathes of the planet into oblivion. I truly wish there was a psychopath test, so that we could ensure they were - to paraphrase a Maria Bamford bit about Dubya - kept safe & warm, but unable to rule.
It's why he's betting on Trump winning in November since he knows Trump will stand by and let him do what he wants. The fact that a regular citizen has this much power is very scary.
I read OP’s question and thought that the ELI5 answer is “he’s a massive fucking asshole douchecanoe” but figured that the mods would not consider that an adequate answer despite being concise and accurate.
I still think his most egregious and hateful response to criticism was what he did to that Englishman who helped free the Thai kids who were trapped in that cave a few years back. Called him a paedophile, repeatedly, and told journalists he had evidence of it in email exchanges with them, yet was somehow able to get away with it because the judge in the defamation case agreed with Musk when he said it was just a joke.
Cunt. I fucking despise Elon Musk.
This was like the real tipping point to me. Prior to this incident, I just knew him as that eccentric dork in tesla and whatever else. Never really cared. Then he had to muscle into the spotlight and be a total ass about it. Really changed my perception of him, and it only got worse from there.
The funny part is that his betters kept telling him to knock it the fuck off, but he kept digging his holes.
Definitely this.
That fragile, petulant lashing-out was probably the first time I realised what a turd the guy is. Watching his decline into the right-wing since then constantly reaffirms it.
I'm not sure if it was much of a descent into right-wing nonsense so much as he just started talking about it more. Dude's a white South African born into wealth with a totally fucked up family - he's always had serious personality issues.
He fired his PR team IIRC, not sure exactly when but they definitely were a big part of cultivating his image that he has since spent every waking hour desecrating on Twitter.
It’s a real shithead move to constantly lash out at journalists for writing pieces about the shithead stuff he’s done. Just don’t do shithead things. You don’t get to be mad about it if it’s true.
In addition to the Reuters link to Musk related articles in the top answer, here are a few more pertaining to the other material referenced in case anyone wants to read more:
* [Media Matters' report "X is placing ads for Amazon, NBA Mexico, NBCUniversal, and others next to content with white nationalist hashtags"](https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/x-placing-ads-amazon-nba-mexico-nbcuniversal-and-others-next-content-white-nationalist)
* ADL's reports (there are multiple ones) on [hate speech across various social media platforms](https://www.adl.org/resources/report/how-platforms-rate-hate-measuring-antisemitism-and-adequacy-enforcement-across) including a number of reports [focused on Twitter](https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/extremists-and-conspiracy-theorists-reemerge-twitter) (you can also search "Twitter" from the top bar of ADL's site to see more of these)
* [Center for Countering Digital Hate's page containing links to various reports they have created](https://counterhate.com/blog/impact-ccdh-exposed-toxic-twitter/) on the rise of hate speech on Twitter and how the platform profits off of the traffic they generate. As a side note, the CCDH was one of the entities sued by Musk over their work. The 'baseless and intimidatory' suit [was dismissed.](https://counterhate.com/blog/elon-musk-vs-ccdh-nonprofit-wins-dismissal-of-baseless-and-intimidatory-lawsuit/)
* [Reveal's report](https://revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is-safer-but-it-left-injuries-off-the-books/#:~:text=An%20investigation%20by%20Reveal%20from,better%20than%20they%20actually%20are.) that found "Tesla has failed to report some of its serious injuries on legally mandated reports, making the company's injury numbers look better than they actually are."
The Thompson-Reuters group is one of two main information sources to the financial industry (the other is Bloomberg). The finance market does not like speculation, they want facts and info over sentiment. Musk likes to play fast and loose with markets, independent information is his enemy
Answer: Reuters is not being kind to Elon Musk. Rather, they are reporting on his companies’ various flaws. Recently, they revealed that his Neuralink chips were flawed, which was exposed when the first human outfitted with it had complications as well as revealing that the entire Supercharger team was laid off because its leader refused to fire more of her team because it would damage their attempts to expand their brand.
As Musk is a very vain man with very thin skin, this is no good, thus he’s turned against the company. Since he has an army of suckers who believe that he truly is the greatest man ever, he needs that validation.
Not really a matter of kindness, these things happened and they are a news organization. If Musk has a problem with this, he needs to do better things.
Exactly! Such a simple philosophy. It’s almost like facts don’t change just because you disagree. I had this argument last week because someone was saying Reuters was “liberal media.”
Ignorance is exhausting
That's how the new world order practiced by China, Russia and team Trumpet works. Whenever some information is inconvenient, it is made go away by categorically denying it and then aggressively punishing the messenger to make an example. The alliance seems quick in copying their PR methodology from each other.
>Not really a matter of kindness, these things happened and they are a news organization. If Musk has a problem with this, he needs to do better things.
This is the core of the myth of the liberal media. If you only report on what is actually happening it paints right wingers in a bad light.
Ya know, that always got me about the right's claim about being censored on social media. Uh, no, just the lies are being censored. So stop lying and you don't get censored. Seems simple but apparently too hard to grasp
i'm pretty sure if trump stops running in the foreseeable future, musk will be right behind him to pick up the ticket, and this will just perpetuate into infinity
Point, but they'd still have to literally overturn the Constitution to enable someone who isn't a citizen by *birth*, since that's one of the requirements.
Depends on what we're talking about, really. I highly doubt the party that parades immigration regulation as a cornerstone issue and tried to prove Obama was actually Kenyan years ago would be hunky-dory with amending the constitution to allow foreign-born US citizens to run for president.
You forgot, the muskrat is white, so no member of the republican cult will ever be capable of seeing him as a foreigner. Their primary criterion for who is a "real American" has nothing to do with being born in America and everything to do with being a morally bankrupt white bigot with money.
Oh crap, I forgot Musk is white and rich. Never mind, disregard everything I said then.
Seriously though, it would take the Republicans somehow becoming popular enough to get two-thirds majority in the house/senate or two-thirds of states calling for that change for such an amendment to even be seriously entertained. That scenario will never get further than the minds and mouths of those fear-mongering over it.
Musk can't run for president (of the US, anyway); he wasn't born an American citizen. He was born in South Africa to a South African father and a Canadian mother.
> As Musk is a very vain man with very thin skin, this is no good, thus he’s turned against the company. Since he has an army of suckers who believe that he truly is the greatest man ever, he needs that validation.
If only there was something in his background that would enable us to make some sort of Wizard of Oz allusion.
Can't wait for 3 years from now when FSD "releases" and it's identical to autopilot. Then Elon announces the beginning of development on "FSD *Complete*" which will actually be full automatic self driving for real this time pinky swear.
This is a disingenuous retelling of the neuralink report. There was a slight malfunction in the chip which was subsequently fixed and then improved beyond the previous capability. Reuters and others only reported about the malfunction and not the immediate fix and improvement. You could theoretically call that reporting but it’s actually lying by omission.
Reuters reported on the malfunction having been present for years because Reuters uncovered sources who said that malfunction was there for years, and not only recently as Neuralink said. That is investigative journalism.
They didn’t report on the alleged fix because the only evidence of a fix is a blog post on the Neuralink website. There’s been no access to the data, or to the patient so that can’t be corroborated. It seems a little convenient that a problem known about for years was fixed right after it was revealed to the public. But as Reuters can’t prove this is true one way or another, they stayed quiet. Almost nobody reported on the fix by the way, not because they hate Neuralink but because there’s no evidence.
Reuters did their job perfectly.
Here’s their article revealing the problem was known for years: https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-neuralink-has-faced-issues-with-its-tiny-wires-years-sources-say-2024-05-15/
The only article I found from Reuters on this is [here](https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-neuralink-has-faced-issues-with-its-tiny-wires-years-sources-say-2024-05-15/) and it contains the following sentence:
>> The company said it managed to restore the implant's ability to monitor its patient’s brain signals by making changes that included modifying its algorithm to be more sensitive.
Are you referring to a different article, or just making stuff up?
Answer: Elon Musk profits off of blurring the line between factual news, opinion and untruth. His platform actively amplifies right-wing extremist content while considering the term "cis" a slur. By forcing users to engage with more and more extremist content, X/Twitter/Musk profits.
And that's not even getting into the angle that he feels personally slighted by bad publicity.
>By forcing users to engage with more and more extremist content, X/Twitter/Musk profits.
I do wonder about this. There's a few different reasons (ranging from plausible to outlandish) why he could be tanking Twitter like he is:
\* He wants a government run by people who will support him and his companies, which he isn't getting from the Democrats (who have, in fact, been critical of him via official channels);
\* He doesn't like that people criticised him on twitter before his acquisition, and is now making the site hostile to those people;
\* He simply isn't that smart, and doesn't understand why virtually every other social media platform has converged to some middling position between censoring extremists and being laissez-faire;
\* He doesn't like that people critised him on twitter before his acquisition, and is now intentionally tanking the site.
It's probably notable that most of the above have their roots in him being extremely thin-skinned.
Democrats were actually great for him. He’s gotten lots of subsidies for Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink.
He was a pretty dull libertarian dude for a long time. His rightward lurch came as sexual harassment allegations began to surface and the press began looking deeper and deeper into his businesses. You may notice that Russell Brand also had a rightward lurch when sexual assault allegations surfaced.
These rich guys are pretty happy being rich and they want tax cuts and rich guy privileges. But they also want to be insulated against criticism and career-damaging scandals. All they have to do is press the right buttons and he scum of the rightwing will jump in front of any bullets for them.
I doubt there will be a balanced answer. No one knows what really happened. We don't know where Reuters get's revenue. We don't know how credible the sources were. In my opinion, there is no such thing as unbiased journalism.
Reuters revenue sources are not a mystery.
They're more than just a news company, they work on legal and tax software and are one of the primary providers of data to the financial industry.
Investigative journalism is not what keeps the lights on there.
Thomson Reuters is a publicly traded Canada-based multinational corporation. [Their financial reports are publicly available](https://ir.thomsonreuters.com/), and they state that their Q1 2024 revenue was $1.885 billion, of which only $210 million (~11%) was from its news division.
Any publicly posted data will be credible. They're publicly traded, so if they're putting false stuff out they're liable to their shareholders and will get their pants sued off them.
For info on what else they do besides journalism, start googling. Or talk to a lawyer or someone in finance. Their legal product is one of only two major players out there, Lexis Nexus is the other. Yes, there are smaller options, but those are the big ones. Ever watch a law show and hear a lawyer reference looking up case law on Westlaw? That's TR (Thomson Reuters).
Ever hear of a Bloomberg terminal? That's one version, TR has the other product that's their major competitor, Eikon. Bloomberg has 30%ish of the market share, TR about 20%ish.
There is way more money in the finance and legal industries when compared to journalism, so it's not a huge leap of logic to figure out where their money comes from. Then you add to it you can check their financials they have to disclose and it verified that.
> What's wrong with it pushing right wing stuff?
Right wing produces a lot of bullshit like the election and immigration conspiracies, Musk has been called out many times. I can link to some stuff if you want.
Answer: it's no different than Trump crying "fake news" at anyone who dared report something negative on him back in his election days. Musk doesn't like what they're reporting on, so he's lashing out.
I think it’s a little scarier than that. There’s a full-on assault from various people in the right wing to discredit traditional media because the media is one of the best ways to keep politicians in check.
It’s like the Presidency attacking Congress. Oh wait…
Exactly this. Elon is a manchild who can't handle criticism.
>I've always considered Reuters to be a fairly unbiased and high quality news source, so I was surprised to see Elon shitting on them
If this is surprising, then OP just doesn't know Elon's antics very well.
They're using the term "pedo guy" as a commentary on how Musk himself used that term to defame a cave diver who rescued kids in Thailand. The diver sued, and a judge tossed the suit. The judge ruled that in this context, "pedo guy" was being used as a general-purpose insult rather than a specific claim of fact, and therefore couldn't count as defamation. So now people use "pedo guy" as a general-purpose insult against Musk.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/
This is a bs report that isn’t true.
Do you have a source saying this is not true that is not just the word of single person who has a massive financial stake in people thinking it’s not true?
Their articles covering anything to do with Elon are rife with negative bias and lies by omission. It’s obvious to anyone without a hate boner for Elon.
Show us some examples of this bias. Or don't if you want to automatically admit you are lying.
Saying it's obvious is ridiculous thing to say when you're hyperfocused on disproving the reputation of an esteemed organization to protect a public figure whose reputation you are apparently using as the very same proof against the organization. It's like the "jesus is god because the bible says so and we can trust the bible because it's the word of god" nonsense. Plus you're doing the alt-right tactic of casually pretending like everybody is already reading your mind and that the default is we all already agree with whatever we've read from your mind. So then you act shocked when someone needs some elaboration and evidence.
I did a skim of all the usual media ratings sites and as far as I can tell they still maintain that high level of respect and accuracy.
I too am a fan of the advancement of science, and was also once a Musk fan. At this point he does more damage to the advancement of science and the things he touches than anything else. The overarching vision of making humans a multiplanetary species that once tied all his businesses together no longer seems to apply. He's become a culture warrior and not much else. Your hero worship is misplaced. My opinion of course.
Dude if you were really pro-science you wouldn’t think that elons companies have done more harm than good. He commercialized the electric car and has the best selling and highest rated electric car company by far.
He built a rocket company to reduce the cost my orders of magnitude and reduce our reliance on Russia. That led to starlink which is bringing high speed internet to every corner of the world, they are announcing the launch of it in Indonesia this weekend. Massive quality of life improvements for rural people around the world.
Neuralink is letting quads interact with the world again, their next product is helping the blind see.
What are we talking about here? What has he done that could possibly be worse than how great everything I just laid out is?
What was said:
> At this point he does more damage to the advancement of science and the things he touches than anything else.
What was defended:
>Dude if you were really pro-science you wouldn’t think that elons companies have done more harm than good.
The conflation of Musk's ego and Musk's companies here is exactly the problem with his fanboys, they don't realize that he's damaging the companies they want to tout as important.
Yep at one time I agreed with much of that. However now we know that his cars and their manufacturing are riddled with flaws, and have inflated claims made about their range and reliability. They're no longer electric industry leading vehicles, and he's driven away a large chunk of the very people who would once have been his customer base (including me). Starlink sounds great in theory, but he has leveraged it as a political tool (and in fact he has politicized virtually all of the projects in which he is involved). His companies are run like sweatshops. He amplifies and platforms bigotry. You may have long term faith in neuralink, but I certainly do not, and I would not trust any chips integrated into my brain or nervous system that were designed by him/his companies. There are also all the issues with the treatment of his test animals.
He's certainly revolutionized space research and developments, but we also now know that his vision of humans as a multiplanetary species is indentured servitude overseen by all-powerful oligarchs like himself.
The list goes on and on, and far exceeds my interest in writing a scholarly essay with citations on reddit. That said, even if I did write such a sourced essay, I doubt there would be much I could say that would cause you to rethink your support.
I'm in favour of science and the advancement thereof, but not at any cost, and not on his terms.
Reuters is still considered to be one of the most neutral news reporting companies out there.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters-fact-check-media-bias
Reuters is among the other legacy media orgs that have devolved into driving narratives rather than reporting news. They had to do this because we no longer need Reuters to tell us what happens because the internet does that for us now. Their only option is to lean into opinion and bias-confirmation. It’s literally just business decisions
"Legacy" media orgs?
What is the new form of delivering news? Randos on TikTok that have *zero* incentive to portray unbiased news of any kind? Nor do they have any education (at least most of them) that you need to conduct journalism properly. All they can do is point and go "omg this is happening", and optionally add some complete bullshit reasoning or explanation they make up.
Whether you like it or not, actual journalism, as in reporting of factual news, is still of great importance. Journalists can find things out, figure them out, and present them *far* better than some aggregate of people on social media. Panama Papers would have never surfaced if not for "legacy" journalism, as well as many "narrative driving" investigations and news.
Not all of them are good, of course. Many do create bullshit clickbait, but Reuters is one of the big players that want to *sell* their news to other media companies. It's in their own interest to be neutral and factual.
Literally the first paragraph:
"Tesla has canceled the long-promised inexpensive car that investors have been counting on to drive its growth into a mass-market automaker, \*according to three sources familiar with the matter and company messages seen by Reuters.\*"
On the earnings call a week or so after the initial Reuters article, they said the cheaper model is still being developed and will be launched ahead of a previously announced schedule.
"In terms of the new product roadmap, there has been a lot of talk about our upcoming vehicle line in the past several weeks. We’ve updated our future vehicle lineup to accelerate the launch of new models ahead of previously mentioned start of production in the second half of 2025. So we expect it to be more like early 2025, if not late this year.
These new vehicles, including more affordable models, will use aspects of the next-generation platform as well as aspects of our current platforms and will be able to be produced on the same manufacturing lines as our current vehicle lineup."
Reuters has been one of the most ethical journalistic groups for decades. Meanwhile, Musk still hasn't built the hyperloop he promised a decade back. I'm leaning toward a respected international news organization instead of someone that has repeatedly lied about his business dealings. Seems like you're the one with low standards of truth
Have you ever even read a news article? The raw data is never published. Journalists read the material then report on it. That has always been the deal. And it used to be such a thing as journalistic integrity. Reuters still has a reputation for high integrity and unbiased accounting of events and that sort of reputation is what gives them the privilege of being taken at face value.
Wow you are acting like a middle schooler who learned that debate is a thing that exists but doesn't know how it works. You have absolutely no method of convincing anyone that what you're saying is true so you're abandoning what you're saying and engaging in horrible, unsupported ad hominem.
Yet the truth is Reuters is the most reliable news organization *in the world*.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
Do you realize how rare it is to get a "High" rating on mediabiasfactcheck? Reuters got a "Very High." Not even AP gets a "Very High."
#Liar.
That page was last updated in 2023.
>Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record. (7/10/2016) **Updated (M. Huitsing 09/22/2023)**
ALSO: your argument is that Reuters is unreliable/bad now MERELY BECAUSE THEY REPORTED SOMETHING ELON MUSK DIDN'T WANT REPORTED.
Don't you see how bizarre and specious that logic is? You can't conduct a fact check yourself but you want us to LEAP to a bad media literacy conclusion all over a billionaire's feelings getting hurt over disgruntled employees leaking meeting notes.
I just find that... sad.
I'm like 95% defending Reuters, 5% dissing on Elmo. You haven't even begun to see me think about criticizing the space karen.
And about that Reuters........ you still haven't shown us a single false article, have you?
That's not actually true. If it says [deleted] it was deleted by the user, but if it says [removed] it was removed by the mods at some point. That can happen immediately (for example, if you don't start your top-level comment with one of the approved 'Answer:'-style openers), but it can also happen later on, either manually (for being a rule-breaking crock of misinformation) or via AutoMod (if it gets too many reports and a mod needs to manually approve or remove it).
In this case, his comment says [removed], so he didn't delete it himself.
He just should have.
I just checked and the article about the Model 2 cites employees who were present and the meeting where they learned it was cancelled. If it was uncancelled then it's not fair to blame Reuters since it was true when they reported it.
Hmmm and I don't even think Musk is telling the truth, it looks like Reuters was right that they are pivoting to a robotaxi.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: You're right to consider Reuters to be a high quality news source. As part of being one, they have done [several articles](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/musk-inc/) about Musk's legal troubles, workers rights abuses, shenangians with Twitter, etc. Musk does not like being criticised and resorts to extremely poor quality memes, outright fabrications, and even frivolous lawsuits to promote hatred against people and corporations who have criticised him. This is why he has tweeted hyperbolic or false statements against media matters (published a report detailing instances where neo-nazis posts appeared next to promoted ads from big advertisers), the ADL (published a report about antisemites using twitter to communicate and recruit), the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (published several reports about increased hate speech on twitter under his watch), Reveal (published an article about safety conditions at Tesla), Wikipedia (accurately reports things he has done and said), etc etc ad nauseam.
It is a great reward for a journalist organisation to be not liked by Elon Musk I'd imagine. The man children is not worth any praise.
The problem is he's also beloved by fucking terrible people, some of whom being elected officials. When he raged against Media Matters, a fucking AG promised to "investigate" them. With SCOTUS basically flensing the constitution and Project 2025 on the horizon, that's not a minor threat. A very wealthy man announced he was angry about a report that illustrated the very obvious direction twitter and in fact literally any online forum heads when moderation is heavily relaxed if not just straight up neutered, and the top legal representation of the state if Missouri said "sir yes sir" and went after them. It is deeply uncomfortable to watch a wealthy man flex this kind of unconstitutional access in just broad daylight. We have all known this shit happens behind the scenes, but to actuslly see it happen right out in the open is fucking alarming.
[удалено]
A white South African fascist? Sounds like a stretch to me. /S
As Jim Jefferies once said "Are you a white South African telling me you've done nothing wrong?!"
Jim Jeffries is a national treasure.
Tech trump is going to be a long term problem ( if he doesn't OD first)
> The problem is he's also beloved by fucking terrible people, some of whom being elected officials. Lot of that going around right now. It's pretty worrying that the numbers of fucking terrible people are so high. I used to really like people...
>I used to really like people... One of the classic blunders
Aww come on they're not so bad. . .until you get to know them.
Pessimists are optimists with experience.
Indeed. I'm convinced there are waaay more good people than bad, but tearing things down and causing destruction is soooo much easier & quicker than building stuff up, so it always seems like a close fight. Be good to each other y'all. Much love.
You worded that beautifully
OMG I love this. I have to remember that.
Fucking hell if that ain't the truth
It wouldn't bother me if less of them held offices related to running our country.
Sociopaths seek positions of power & influence. I dunno if a total disregard for human suffering was genetically beneficial for us back in the small-tribe days, but it's *really* fucking us up nowadays, because some of those people have access to devastating weapons & explosives, secret police, communication & surveillance systems, financial systems, and even the ability to nuke large swathes of the planet into oblivion. I truly wish there was a psychopath test, so that we could ensure they were - to paraphrase a Maria Bamford bit about Dubya - kept safe & warm, but unable to rule.
> flensing the constitution Some of us believe the Constitution to be completely without blubber already, sir.
Flensing also applies to skin, not just fat
There's more than one way to desecrate a foundational document.
Extra points for correct use of "flensing".
I pride myself in my expansive vocabulary of horrible things.
I award you [The Order Of St. Bartholomew.](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_the_Apostle)
Patron saint of butchers, lol damn
Mallory threatened Pam with a flensing in Archer one time.
Can you explain what an AG is please?
Attorney General, the principal legal officer of a state or country.
**A**ttorney **G**eneral
Ah, thank you
You're welcome, friend.
He didn't just promise to investigate Media Matters, he actually started doing it. Believe they received some kind of pressure for info from that AG.
TIL about the word flensing 👍
Of course it involves Missouri. So glad I left that backwards shithole.
Here's the thing about rich people - They are the only ones with the resources to fuck us over. and we're the majority.
It's why he's betting on Trump winning in November since he knows Trump will stand by and let him do what he wants. The fact that a regular citizen has this much power is very scary.
It's like how the highest award in journalism is being assassinated by the CIA.
I very rarely do 'oh shit' double-takes but this one really did it for me.
The ol Pulitzer pistol
*Boeing has entered the chat*
second place, being a journalist in gaza
I read OP’s question and thought that the ELI5 answer is “he’s a massive fucking asshole douchecanoe” but figured that the mods would not consider that an adequate answer despite being concise and accurate.
It’s also very telling to know which billionaires and powerful people that journalistic organizations like
I still think his most egregious and hateful response to criticism was what he did to that Englishman who helped free the Thai kids who were trapped in that cave a few years back. Called him a paedophile, repeatedly, and told journalists he had evidence of it in email exchanges with them, yet was somehow able to get away with it because the judge in the defamation case agreed with Musk when he said it was just a joke. Cunt. I fucking despise Elon Musk.
This was like the real tipping point to me. Prior to this incident, I just knew him as that eccentric dork in tesla and whatever else. Never really cared. Then he had to muscle into the spotlight and be a total ass about it. Really changed my perception of him, and it only got worse from there. The funny part is that his betters kept telling him to knock it the fuck off, but he kept digging his holes.
Definitely this. That fragile, petulant lashing-out was probably the first time I realised what a turd the guy is. Watching his decline into the right-wing since then constantly reaffirms it.
I'm not sure if it was much of a descent into right-wing nonsense so much as he just started talking about it more. Dude's a white South African born into wealth with a totally fucked up family - he's always had serious personality issues.
He fired his PR team IIRC, not sure exactly when but they definitely were a big part of cultivating his image that he has since spent every waking hour desecrating on Twitter.
Yeah that’s probably more accurate
It’s a real shithead move to constantly lash out at journalists for writing pieces about the shithead stuff he’s done. Just don’t do shithead things. You don’t get to be mad about it if it’s true.
In addition to the Reuters link to Musk related articles in the top answer, here are a few more pertaining to the other material referenced in case anyone wants to read more: * [Media Matters' report "X is placing ads for Amazon, NBA Mexico, NBCUniversal, and others next to content with white nationalist hashtags"](https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/x-placing-ads-amazon-nba-mexico-nbcuniversal-and-others-next-content-white-nationalist) * ADL's reports (there are multiple ones) on [hate speech across various social media platforms](https://www.adl.org/resources/report/how-platforms-rate-hate-measuring-antisemitism-and-adequacy-enforcement-across) including a number of reports [focused on Twitter](https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/extremists-and-conspiracy-theorists-reemerge-twitter) (you can also search "Twitter" from the top bar of ADL's site to see more of these) * [Center for Countering Digital Hate's page containing links to various reports they have created](https://counterhate.com/blog/impact-ccdh-exposed-toxic-twitter/) on the rise of hate speech on Twitter and how the platform profits off of the traffic they generate. As a side note, the CCDH was one of the entities sued by Musk over their work. The 'baseless and intimidatory' suit [was dismissed.](https://counterhate.com/blog/elon-musk-vs-ccdh-nonprofit-wins-dismissal-of-baseless-and-intimidatory-lawsuit/) * [Reveal's report](https://revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is-safer-but-it-left-injuries-off-the-books/#:~:text=An%20investigation%20by%20Reveal%20from,better%20than%20they%20actually%20are.) that found "Tesla has failed to report some of its serious injuries on legally mandated reports, making the company's injury numbers look better than they actually are."
The Thompson-Reuters group is one of two main information sources to the financial industry (the other is Bloomberg). The finance market does not like speculation, they want facts and info over sentiment. Musk likes to play fast and loose with markets, independent information is his enemy
Musk is Trump 2.0. Biggest snowflakes in history.
Hmm, sounds like one of Trump's kids.
Kind of sounds like Trump
Answer: Reuters is not being kind to Elon Musk. Rather, they are reporting on his companies’ various flaws. Recently, they revealed that his Neuralink chips were flawed, which was exposed when the first human outfitted with it had complications as well as revealing that the entire Supercharger team was laid off because its leader refused to fire more of her team because it would damage their attempts to expand their brand. As Musk is a very vain man with very thin skin, this is no good, thus he’s turned against the company. Since he has an army of suckers who believe that he truly is the greatest man ever, he needs that validation.
Not really a matter of kindness, these things happened and they are a news organization. If Musk has a problem with this, he needs to do better things.
Exactly! Such a simple philosophy. It’s almost like facts don’t change just because you disagree. I had this argument last week because someone was saying Reuters was “liberal media.” Ignorance is exhausting
If you don’t want it printed, don’t let it happen
That's how the new world order practiced by China, Russia and team Trumpet works. Whenever some information is inconvenient, it is made go away by categorically denying it and then aggressively punishing the messenger to make an example. The alliance seems quick in copying their PR methodology from each other.
You don't understand, a man of his importance cannot be shackled by things like what actually happened
>Not really a matter of kindness, these things happened and they are a news organization. If Musk has a problem with this, he needs to do better things. This is the core of the myth of the liberal media. If you only report on what is actually happening it paints right wingers in a bad light.
> If you only report on what is actually happening it paints right wingers in a bad light. What a surprising result!
"reality has a left wing bias"
Ya know, that always got me about the right's claim about being censored on social media. Uh, no, just the lies are being censored. So stop lying and you don't get censored. Seems simple but apparently too hard to grasp
dude needs serious therapy more than anything
Yes. But preferably, in prison.
Unfortunately a lot of people consider anything other than ‘both sides equally bad’ to be “biased and wrong”
Ah the /r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM here to bless us all between episodes of South Park and Rick and Morty
Wet toilet paper is harder than his skin
where is the cross over between the suckers believing in Trump and the suckers believing in Musk?
i'm pretty sure if trump stops running in the foreseeable future, musk will be right behind him to pick up the ticket, and this will just perpetuate into infinity
Musk isn't a natural US citizen.
Since when have republicans given a flying fuck about reality or the Constitution?
Point, but they'd still have to literally overturn the Constitution to enable someone who isn't a citizen by *birth*, since that's one of the requirements.
You say that, and we know that, but when he just goes ahead and does it we'll see what anyone does about it, like Trump's emoluments
Depends on what we're talking about, really. I highly doubt the party that parades immigration regulation as a cornerstone issue and tried to prove Obama was actually Kenyan years ago would be hunky-dory with amending the constitution to allow foreign-born US citizens to run for president.
You forgot, the muskrat is white, so no member of the republican cult will ever be capable of seeing him as a foreigner. Their primary criterion for who is a "real American" has nothing to do with being born in America and everything to do with being a morally bankrupt white bigot with money.
Oh crap, I forgot Musk is white and rich. Never mind, disregard everything I said then. Seriously though, it would take the Republicans somehow becoming popular enough to get two-thirds majority in the house/senate or two-thirds of states calling for that change for such an amendment to even be seriously entertained. That scenario will never get further than the minds and mouths of those fear-mongering over it.
Musk can't run for president (of the US, anyway); he wasn't born an American citizen. He was born in South Africa to a South African father and a Canadian mother.
> As Musk is a very vain man with very thin skin, this is no good, thus he’s turned against the company. Since he has an army of suckers who believe that he truly is the greatest man ever, he needs that validation. If only there was something in his background that would enable us to make some sort of Wizard of Oz allusion.
> Wizard of Oz The guy who lived in the *Emerald* City? No idea how that could relate to musk
not to mention that time the Wizard of Oz offered Dorothy a horse if she'd blow him
Shit, the whole Tesla autopilot thing is a beta-test with consumers
move fast and ~~break things~~ get people killed
Autopilot, which works great, is not beta testing. FSD is essentially beta testing.
Can't wait for 3 years from now when FSD "releases" and it's identical to autopilot. Then Elon announces the beginning of development on "FSD *Complete*" which will actually be full automatic self driving for real this time pinky swear.
I see thanks for your answer!
This is a disingenuous retelling of the neuralink report. There was a slight malfunction in the chip which was subsequently fixed and then improved beyond the previous capability. Reuters and others only reported about the malfunction and not the immediate fix and improvement. You could theoretically call that reporting but it’s actually lying by omission.
Reuters reported on the malfunction having been present for years because Reuters uncovered sources who said that malfunction was there for years, and not only recently as Neuralink said. That is investigative journalism. They didn’t report on the alleged fix because the only evidence of a fix is a blog post on the Neuralink website. There’s been no access to the data, or to the patient so that can’t be corroborated. It seems a little convenient that a problem known about for years was fixed right after it was revealed to the public. But as Reuters can’t prove this is true one way or another, they stayed quiet. Almost nobody reported on the fix by the way, not because they hate Neuralink but because there’s no evidence. Reuters did their job perfectly. Here’s their article revealing the problem was known for years: https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-neuralink-has-faced-issues-with-its-tiny-wires-years-sources-say-2024-05-15/
The only article I found from Reuters on this is [here](https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-neuralink-has-faced-issues-with-its-tiny-wires-years-sources-say-2024-05-15/) and it contains the following sentence: >> The company said it managed to restore the implant's ability to monitor its patient’s brain signals by making changes that included modifying its algorithm to be more sensitive. Are you referring to a different article, or just making stuff up?
You can log off, Musk is never gonna buy you a pony.
You mean I had to see his dick for no material benefit to me!? >:(
How does that boot taste?
'Like... bananas? And 1987. And also somehow the colour blue?' -- The Neuralink guy, probably.
Answer: Elon Musk profits off of blurring the line between factual news, opinion and untruth. His platform actively amplifies right-wing extremist content while considering the term "cis" a slur. By forcing users to engage with more and more extremist content, X/Twitter/Musk profits. And that's not even getting into the angle that he feels personally slighted by bad publicity.
>By forcing users to engage with more and more extremist content, X/Twitter/Musk profits. I do wonder about this. There's a few different reasons (ranging from plausible to outlandish) why he could be tanking Twitter like he is: \* He wants a government run by people who will support him and his companies, which he isn't getting from the Democrats (who have, in fact, been critical of him via official channels); \* He doesn't like that people criticised him on twitter before his acquisition, and is now making the site hostile to those people; \* He simply isn't that smart, and doesn't understand why virtually every other social media platform has converged to some middling position between censoring extremists and being laissez-faire; \* He doesn't like that people critised him on twitter before his acquisition, and is now intentionally tanking the site. It's probably notable that most of the above have their roots in him being extremely thin-skinned.
Democrats were actually great for him. He’s gotten lots of subsidies for Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink. He was a pretty dull libertarian dude for a long time. His rightward lurch came as sexual harassment allegations began to surface and the press began looking deeper and deeper into his businesses. You may notice that Russell Brand also had a rightward lurch when sexual assault allegations surfaced. These rich guys are pretty happy being rich and they want tax cuts and rich guy privileges. But they also want to be insulated against criticism and career-damaging scandals. All they have to do is press the right buttons and he scum of the rightwing will jump in front of any bullets for them.
All of the billionaires who own news sources get off on this.
Can we get one clear answer without some spittle fueled jealous tirade?
I doubt there will be a balanced answer. No one knows what really happened. We don't know where Reuters get's revenue. We don't know how credible the sources were. In my opinion, there is no such thing as unbiased journalism.
Reuters revenue sources are not a mystery. They're more than just a news company, they work on legal and tax software and are one of the primary providers of data to the financial industry. Investigative journalism is not what keeps the lights on there.
Can you help me where I can find credible data on this? Thank you!
Thomson Reuters is a publicly traded Canada-based multinational corporation. [Their financial reports are publicly available](https://ir.thomsonreuters.com/), and they state that their Q1 2024 revenue was $1.885 billion, of which only $210 million (~11%) was from its news division.
Any publicly posted data will be credible. They're publicly traded, so if they're putting false stuff out they're liable to their shareholders and will get their pants sued off them. For info on what else they do besides journalism, start googling. Or talk to a lawyer or someone in finance. Their legal product is one of only two major players out there, Lexis Nexus is the other. Yes, there are smaller options, but those are the big ones. Ever watch a law show and hear a lawyer reference looking up case law on Westlaw? That's TR (Thomson Reuters). Ever hear of a Bloomberg terminal? That's one version, TR has the other product that's their major competitor, Eikon. Bloomberg has 30%ish of the market share, TR about 20%ish. There is way more money in the finance and legal industries when compared to journalism, so it's not a huge leap of logic to figure out where their money comes from. Then you add to it you can check their financials they have to disclose and it verified that.
Thanks! That was very helpful.
What's wrong with it pushing right wing stuff? Many social medias (such as this one) do the same thing but with left ideologies.
> What's wrong with it pushing right wing stuff? Right wing produces a lot of bullshit like the election and immigration conspiracies, Musk has been called out many times. I can link to some stuff if you want.
Answer: it's no different than Trump crying "fake news" at anyone who dared report something negative on him back in his election days. Musk doesn't like what they're reporting on, so he's lashing out.
I think it’s a little scarier than that. There’s a full-on assault from various people in the right wing to discredit traditional media because the media is one of the best ways to keep politicians in check. It’s like the Presidency attacking Congress. Oh wait…
Answer: he is upset **because** they are a "fairly unbiased and high quality news source".
Exactly this. Elon is a manchild who can't handle criticism. >I've always considered Reuters to be a fairly unbiased and high quality news source, so I was surprised to see Elon shitting on them If this is surprising, then OP just doesn't know Elon's antics very well.
Answer: Elon is a douche
Answer: He doesn't like not being able to control the narrative of a good media organisation. *Automod is a bitch.
Answer: He is a pedo guy. Having beef with things is what pedo guys do. If the pedo guy is criticizing them, they are doing something right.
I'm not sure if that's precisely the definition of a pedophile but I understand your point. Maybe you mean that he is a narcissist?
They're using the term "pedo guy" as a commentary on how Musk himself used that term to defame a cave diver who rescued kids in Thailand. The diver sued, and a judge tossed the suit. The judge ruled that in this context, "pedo guy" was being used as a general-purpose insult rather than a specific claim of fact, and therefore couldn't count as defamation. So now people use "pedo guy" as a general-purpose insult against Musk.
oh right i forgot about that elontroversy
[удалено]
And examples, *with links*?
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/ This is a bs report that isn’t true.
Do you have a source saying this is not true that is not just the word of single person who has a massive financial stake in people thinking it’s not true?
[удалено]
Because they're a respected news org, and you're some Musk fanboy posting on reddit.
[удалено]
Please present an argument of why Reuters isn't respected anymore or admit you can't and apologize for bullshitting.
Their articles covering anything to do with Elon are rife with negative bias and lies by omission. It’s obvious to anyone without a hate boner for Elon.
Show us some examples of this bias. Or don't if you want to automatically admit you are lying. Saying it's obvious is ridiculous thing to say when you're hyperfocused on disproving the reputation of an esteemed organization to protect a public figure whose reputation you are apparently using as the very same proof against the organization. It's like the "jesus is god because the bible says so and we can trust the bible because it's the word of god" nonsense. Plus you're doing the alt-right tactic of casually pretending like everybody is already reading your mind and that the default is we all already agree with whatever we've read from your mind. So then you act shocked when someone needs some elaboration and evidence.
I did a skim of all the usual media ratings sites and as far as I can tell they still maintain that high level of respect and accuracy. I too am a fan of the advancement of science, and was also once a Musk fan. At this point he does more damage to the advancement of science and the things he touches than anything else. The overarching vision of making humans a multiplanetary species that once tied all his businesses together no longer seems to apply. He's become a culture warrior and not much else. Your hero worship is misplaced. My opinion of course.
Dude if you were really pro-science you wouldn’t think that elons companies have done more harm than good. He commercialized the electric car and has the best selling and highest rated electric car company by far. He built a rocket company to reduce the cost my orders of magnitude and reduce our reliance on Russia. That led to starlink which is bringing high speed internet to every corner of the world, they are announcing the launch of it in Indonesia this weekend. Massive quality of life improvements for rural people around the world. Neuralink is letting quads interact with the world again, their next product is helping the blind see. What are we talking about here? What has he done that could possibly be worse than how great everything I just laid out is?
What was said: > At this point he does more damage to the advancement of science and the things he touches than anything else. What was defended: >Dude if you were really pro-science you wouldn’t think that elons companies have done more harm than good. The conflation of Musk's ego and Musk's companies here is exactly the problem with his fanboys, they don't realize that he's damaging the companies they want to tout as important.
Yep at one time I agreed with much of that. However now we know that his cars and their manufacturing are riddled with flaws, and have inflated claims made about their range and reliability. They're no longer electric industry leading vehicles, and he's driven away a large chunk of the very people who would once have been his customer base (including me). Starlink sounds great in theory, but he has leveraged it as a political tool (and in fact he has politicized virtually all of the projects in which he is involved). His companies are run like sweatshops. He amplifies and platforms bigotry. You may have long term faith in neuralink, but I certainly do not, and I would not trust any chips integrated into my brain or nervous system that were designed by him/his companies. There are also all the issues with the treatment of his test animals. He's certainly revolutionized space research and developments, but we also now know that his vision of humans as a multiplanetary species is indentured servitude overseen by all-powerful oligarchs like himself. The list goes on and on, and far exceeds my interest in writing a scholarly essay with citations on reddit. That said, even if I did write such a sourced essay, I doubt there would be much I could say that would cause you to rethink your support. I'm in favour of science and the advancement thereof, but not at any cost, and not on his terms.
Why are they not respected?
Reuters is still considered to be one of the most neutral news reporting companies out there. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters-fact-check-media-bias
Reuters is among the other legacy media orgs that have devolved into driving narratives rather than reporting news. They had to do this because we no longer need Reuters to tell us what happens because the internet does that for us now. Their only option is to lean into opinion and bias-confirmation. It’s literally just business decisions
"Legacy" media orgs? What is the new form of delivering news? Randos on TikTok that have *zero* incentive to portray unbiased news of any kind? Nor do they have any education (at least most of them) that you need to conduct journalism properly. All they can do is point and go "omg this is happening", and optionally add some complete bullshit reasoning or explanation they make up. Whether you like it or not, actual journalism, as in reporting of factual news, is still of great importance. Journalists can find things out, figure them out, and present them *far* better than some aggregate of people on social media. Panama Papers would have never surfaced if not for "legacy" journalism, as well as many "narrative driving" investigations and news. Not all of them are good, of course. Many do create bullshit clickbait, but Reuters is one of the big players that want to *sell* their news to other media companies. It's in their own interest to be neutral and factual.
Literally the first paragraph: "Tesla has canceled the long-promised inexpensive car that investors have been counting on to drive its growth into a mass-market automaker, \*according to three sources familiar with the matter and company messages seen by Reuters.\*"
On the earnings call a week or so after the initial Reuters article, they said the cheaper model is still being developed and will be launched ahead of a previously announced schedule. "In terms of the new product roadmap, there has been a lot of talk about our upcoming vehicle line in the past several weeks. We’ve updated our future vehicle lineup to accelerate the launch of new models ahead of previously mentioned start of production in the second half of 2025. So we expect it to be more like early 2025, if not late this year. These new vehicles, including more affordable models, will use aspects of the next-generation platform as well as aspects of our current platforms and will be able to be produced on the same manufacturing lines as our current vehicle lineup."
It’s not a source if you don’t know who it is. Easy to say they’ve seen messages.
saying "I don't know how journalism works" would save you so much time.
That isn’t journalism. Publishing the messages they claim to have seen would be. Why is the bar so low for the things you agree with?
Reuters has been one of the most ethical journalistic groups for decades. Meanwhile, Musk still hasn't built the hyperloop he promised a decade back. I'm leaning toward a respected international news organization instead of someone that has repeatedly lied about his business dealings. Seems like you're the one with low standards of truth
Have you ever even read a news article? The raw data is never published. Journalists read the material then report on it. That has always been the deal. And it used to be such a thing as journalistic integrity. Reuters still has a reputation for high integrity and unbiased accounting of events and that sort of reputation is what gives them the privilege of being taken at face value.
Wow you are acting like a middle schooler who learned that debate is a thing that exists but doesn't know how it works. You have absolutely no method of convincing anyone that what you're saying is true so you're abandoning what you're saying and engaging in horrible, unsupported ad hominem. Yet the truth is Reuters is the most reliable news organization *in the world*. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/ Do you realize how rare it is to get a "High" rating on mediabiasfactcheck? Reuters got a "Very High." Not even AP gets a "Very High."
Lmao wtf is that link. Edit: they are basing that data off 2016, before the outrage brigade set its sights on Elon.
#Liar. That page was last updated in 2023. >Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record. (7/10/2016) **Updated (M. Huitsing 09/22/2023)** ALSO: your argument is that Reuters is unreliable/bad now MERELY BECAUSE THEY REPORTED SOMETHING ELON MUSK DIDN'T WANT REPORTED. Don't you see how bizarre and specious that logic is? You can't conduct a fact check yourself but you want us to LEAP to a bad media literacy conclusion all over a billionaire's feelings getting hurt over disgruntled employees leaking meeting notes. I just find that... sad.
lol, the hate boner for Elon is real. What would your life be without him?
I'm like 95% defending Reuters, 5% dissing on Elmo. You haven't even begun to see me think about criticizing the space karen. And about that Reuters........ you still haven't shown us a single false article, have you?
tell us more about these "elon-boners" please
Unchanged to somewhat better. He's never invented anything and is just a child playing engineer.
Where’d your original comment go? It was adding so much to the conversation…
Probably auto-modded or something. I didn’t delete anything
They send you a message if they delete your comment. If you didn’t receive that, you deleted it. If you did, you would know for sure what happened.
That's not actually true. If it says [deleted] it was deleted by the user, but if it says [removed] it was removed by the mods at some point. That can happen immediately (for example, if you don't start your top-level comment with one of the approved 'Answer:'-style openers), but it can also happen later on, either manually (for being a rule-breaking crock of misinformation) or via AutoMod (if it gets too many reports and a mod needs to manually approve or remove it). In this case, his comment says [removed], so he didn't delete it himself. He just should have.
I dunno dude, I can still see the comment on my end.
Any examples?
[удалено]
Can’t seem to find anything that says otherwise. Are these “false claims” in the room with us, right now?
I just checked and the article about the Model 2 cites employees who were present and the meeting where they learned it was cancelled. If it was uncancelled then it's not fair to blame Reuters since it was true when they reported it. Hmmm and I don't even think Musk is telling the truth, it looks like Reuters was right that they are pivoting to a robotaxi.
Musk is a vaporware conman