this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
290 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
69600 readers
3294 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Says Tesla. You're a fool if someone saying "nuh uh!" is good enough for you. Especially when its the reputation of the WSJ vs. the reputation of Tesla.
Tell me you know absolute dick-all about corporations, without telling me you know dick-all about corporations.
I'll give you a hint: what do you think would happen to the stock price of literally any company if the board confirmed they were ousting the CEO before the CEO was out? My dude, your native Australia has a better chance of eliminating every single venomous critter on that island than any corporate board admitting that. And that goes double for the single most overvalued stock on the planet, whose price is driven solely by the hype man's promises.
So yes. If and when Tesla sues the WSJ, and wins that case, then I'll believe they were right. Until then, I'm going to treat them like the lying Nazi-enabling shit car company they are.
So I'm a fool for believing the board members, but you're not the fool for believing some random journalist printing a rumour with no sources, with nothing even remotely supporting it, who reached out to the company for comment and then refused to print their comment denying it, and printed the unsubstantiated rumour anyway?
I'm assuming you were using this as a way of defending the WSJ, but it really doesn't.
No comment. No reply. An outright denial leaves them open to all sorts of lawsuits if they then go and do it.
Your understanding of what companies can and will sue for is remarkably bad.
What we call "JoUrNaLiStS" these days are nothing more than activists most of the time, as is evident by whoever wrote this article and whoever ok'd it for publication, especially without publishing the comments that they specifically reached out to Tesla's board to get.
In this situation you can either believe:
a) Unsubstantiated rumours, with zero evidence supplied, zero sources, from a "JoUrNaLiSt" who tried to verify the story and then refused to acknowledge and publish the fact that the rumour was denied.
b) the board, who the rumour is about, flat out denying the rumour.
I choose to believe the one that isn't just reporting rumours based on zero evidence that have been categorically denied. You choose the other option, which is up to you, but it makes your decision making skills look very dubious. You seem very much in the "guilty until proven innocent" category, because that's essentially what you're saying here - you're asking someone to prove a negative, and even when they say they aren't doing it you then don't believe them?
Many would argue that Tesla's stock price would go UP if this rumour was true, so saying that their stock price depends on them denying it is questionable.
We don't want Murdoch back btw.