this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
29 points (93.9% liked)
Electric Vehicles
2354 readers
241 users here now
Overview:
Electric Vehicles are a key part of our tomorrow and how we get there. If we can get all the fossil fuel vehicles off our roads, out of our seas and out of our skies, we'll have a much better environment. This community is where we discuss the various different vehicles and news stories regarding electric transportation.
Related communities:
- !automotive@discuss.tchncs.de
- !avs@futurology.today
- !byd@lemmy.world
- !ebike@lemm.ee
- !energy@slrpnk.net
- !geely@lemmy.world
- !micromobility@lemmy.world
- !polestar@lemmy.ca
- !rivian@lemmy.zip
- !teslamotors@lemmy.zip
- !xiaomi@lemdro.id
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
How is it defamation if it's true?
Obviously if it's true it is not defamation what I wrote was:
This can be by context, for instance only mentioning bad aspects or anecdotal evidence.
Yes, but the ruling stated that they violated defamation rules, which implies defamation did happen.
So if an ad were to make fun of how horrible Tesla's Full Self Driving feature is, that would be unfair and misleading? As opposed to the pain simple truth?
You can do as you please as a private person. If you are BYD, VW or Ford one has to play by the rules of the market.
The question was how is it defamation, you're giving a non-answer that's nothing more than a blatant appeal to authority.
Well, I am not the IAP nor the original comment author. But as far as I understand the rules, every comparative advertisement, that is saying competitor X is bad instead of our product Y is good, has the same problem: X can easily say that the selected feature is just one random pick of a range of features. They may retaliate with some other fact. That may also be factual true, let's say, BYD cars are build without union oversight.
And that starts a negative cycle. You can be in favour of that. It might be entertaining. But by the book that is not allowed to keep advertisement a little more civilized.
Whilst I'm not defending any advertisement at all, one can easily see what happens when it is allowed to talk about your enemies instead of what you provide. Just look at the logical end of this in form of the attack ads of the US political campaigns.
The question I was asking is, how is it defamation if it's true. You seem to have wandered off onto a tangent of what constitutes ethical / civilised advertising.
More countries than not allow comparative advertising, and the world is not ending. Why use politics as an inaccurate example when the majority of countries actually practice it to some extent?
One thing can be true and still be unfair. A true thing can be misleading. The ruling exists to make the decision easier and make clearer what is allowed or not and what is good business practices:
"Truthfully and fair talking about your business opponent is hard, so let it be and talk about your own strength instead."
We will see about that. ;-)
But it's neither unfair or misleading. Those belts are a known problem.
I think the rules are there to prevent a slippery slope. Ads, which I personally oppose as a whole, can always state positive thinks about the own brand.
The rules are there to protect a large corporation and keep them selling defective products to customers.
True. But BYD is also a very, very large corporation.