Boycott US
Overview:
The community dedicated to boycotting the US until they stop fascism, restore full democracy and start following international law.
Americans have a moral obligation to resist Donald Trump and project 2025 at every turn.
America is a flawed democracy currently being ruled by oligarchs. Stop the backslide! Dont let America become the next Hungary.
America needs to challenge the court rulings of citizens united v. fec and shelby county v. holder, protect the media, implement independent district drawing, and the single transferable vote so they don't end up having people stay home in life-changing elections because they cannot vote for their favourite candidate.
Join 50501.chat to fight back!
Related communities:
Boycott:
!buycanadian@lemmy.ca
Activism:
!antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
view the rest of the comments
They'll still blame it on the driver.
Nothing wrong with that, they are still responsible for the movement of rhe car.
However, Tesla still needs to be responsiblw for false advertising
Sure, and gun companies are responsible for gun deaths.
Gun companies sell weapons. The main purpose of a weapon is to kill. You hold a gun company responsible because their weapon has killed. That only means they did their job correctly.
A car company makes cars. Cars' main purpose is to transport its owner. You can hold a car company responsible for a killing.
That's in a sensible country though. In the US murder is legal as long as you do it with a car.
False analogy.
If there was a gun on the market that sometimes malfunctioned and discharged without anyone touching it we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible. We would demand a recall or outright ban them.
We definitely would hold the owner responsible. Why the fuck have they left a loaded gun unattended? Sure do a recall as well but the owner of the stall is defintely responsible for ensuring the guns on display are not a danger.
Who said it was unattended?
You did.
That would mean a loaded gun was left unattended. The owner/operator would be held liable. They have ignored core gun safety rules.
Yes the manufacturer could be held liable as well but the primary respinsiblility lies with the owner.
The same is true for the driver of the tesla.
So a holstered or shouldered weapon without a finger on the trigger and the safety active is unattended?
Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible.
Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it's still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun.
Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren't expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we're talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun.
The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn't have brought it up because guns aren't cars.
Both are capable of killing people if used improperly.
If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot.
If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it's your fault for being so careless.
You must always expect a gun to go off if it's loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety.
Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone.
You've got blinders on at this point lol. Peace.
Maybe we both do ;)
The Sig Sauer P320 entered the chat...
###BANG###
Oh no everyone I am SO SO sorry I messed up again didn't I - SigP320
Depends on the jurisdiction. If there are local laws against leaving a weapon loaded, we might.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields federally licensed firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability lawsuits when crimes are committed by third parties using their lawfully sold products.
Tesla hasn't bought a law like that yet.
The driver shouldnt be held responsible.
You purchased a product, used the product as intended and the product malfunctioned and killed someone. If it is so critically important that a person needs to be paying 100% attention to it at all times incase it goes wrong while simultaniously being prepared to react instantly and kills someone then the product is bad, not the person using it.
Consumerist thinking, just because you paid money for something doesn't absolve you of shit. Dont use your paid dogshit product to kill other people.
Nope, as a driver you are responsible for moving the vehicle safely.
If you can't do that, you can't move the vehicle.
This is an extremely well established principle, one of the few globally universal legal rules.
If you are driving a car, you are resonsible for the movement of the car.
Blaming self driving is not a defence, you activated the system, you may have delegated the action, but you can't delegate the responsibillity.
At most Tesla should be prosecuted for false advertising and reckless endangerment.
But, look at it from the lawyer's point of view: Tesla has more money. If you include Tesla in the suit, they may pay you to go away.
You also include Tesla in the suit to make it harder for the driver to weasel out of it by blaming Tesla. Best case, jointly and severally liable and you can execute the judgement against the party with money or assets to seize. More likely case, Tesla actively helps your attempt to get a judgement against the driver.
And the point is that the person sat in the car is not driving the car. The GPU is the driver in autonomous vehicles.
Do we have to wait for the first empty robotaxi killing someone on the way to a pickup to assign obvious responsibility?
Thats exactly my point, if you're going to call it "Self Driving" it needs to be able to "Drive Itself". If it cant, its pointless. Most people cant focus on driving when they actually have to do the driving.
'Emergency accident avoidance' could have been a marketable and representative name. But it wouldn't make Tesla stock skyrocket.
You bought the gun, you pulled the trigger.
correction: you purchased a product while knowing it did not absolve you of responsibility, and then you chose to believe that anyway
as they should. no reasonable driver thinks they are not responsible for their vehicle just because they were sold fancy lane keep assist.
any driver who thinks that is a dumbass and shouldn't have a license
Tesla is also guilty, and the driver can take it up with them.
That's really my point, that Tesla is guilty too, but they will say the fault is wholly with the driver. I'm surprised they even preserved enough evidence to show it was using FSD or Autopilot. In the past they've had FSD disengage 300 milliseconds before an accident and then they said it wasn't on at the time.
I mean it is their fault.
As they should, but Tesla should be punished as well.
Over 40 Tesla owners caught sleeping the wheel.
It's the gun makers vs gun owners argument. Just fucking ban FSD.
Or don't ban it but make the provider fully liable
Make it a (and I cant believe I'm going to say this) subscription model.
It costs $X a year for self driving, requires an annual inspection and if using it correctly in accordance with manufacturers instructions the manufacturer has to carry the insurance and liability when its in use.
Until the manufacturer is willing to take the liability on I have ZERO faith in self driving tech.
I feel like it's one of those cases where both the interest & liability is a public issue. This is a perfect case for a public service, and not one for a "go fast and break things" & enshittification economic model
But I fear that both the US (duh) and Europe are way too neoliberal to ever consider this seriously
Tesla calls it "full self-driving". If anybody should be punished, it should be Tesla. Words have meaning, and while legally you can cover your ass by having in the fine print "not actually full self-driving", morally these shits are utterly repugnant and should have their company shut down, sold off piece by piece, with the proceeds going to their victims.
If they called it “Go jump off a bridge” would you do that?
If a bungee cord or parachute was named that i might. And if the description and technical name specified it was only a Prop id be stupid for having done so. But if the Advertising kept saying you should jump of a bridge with it and only the fine print specifies its a prop. i would say that is dangerously misleading and they should be held at least partially responsible.
Hey look! A Felon fanboi!
If I called it "unalive yourself to spare us your attempts at wit" would you do it? How 'bout if I said "please"?
Pretty much the opposite of a fanboy.
They do call it “Full Self Driving (Supervised)”, and say the driver has to be continually alert and ready to intervene, but the name plus Elron promising full autonomous capability for 10 years has been misleading.
If they turn it on and stop watching then that's on them. Doesn't matter what tesla says, its in the news enough that it is vaporware and dangerous. You are at fault if you push the button and something bad happens.
IMO, implying that folks are responsible (to the point of liability) for following the news closely enough to see whether the manufacturers of the products they own have lied to them sets a dangerous precedent. That would mean you not only have to research your purchases beforehand to make good economic decisions for yourself, you also lock yourself into some unknown period of ongoing investigation with unknown depth to keep from being liable for someone else's failures. It's one thing if what is being marketed and sold is comprehensive driving assistance theoretically requiring no driver input, it's another when it's called full self-driving and the CEO makes overreaching claims about its capability. It's been repeatedly ruled that corporations can't bury clauses that fundamentally alter the nature of their agreements with consumers deep in the fine print and expect that to reverse what was otherwise communicated plainly.
you shouldn't be able to turn your attention away if it's supervised. it's such a shit show, unsafe at any speed or brainpower.
There's plenty of fault to go around. We can blame the bad driver and Tesla's bad AI. And there are already legal mechanisms in place to hold both of them responsible.
I agree it's ultimately their fault, and they should especially be vigilant at a stop sign. Still, Tesla has been misleading.