What "analysis" is necessary? There are threads of people going around the country, taking photographs of parking and car lots filled to the brim with Teslas. How do you explain it? The cars are made-to-order, I'm assured.
Furthermore, I don't understand "can't believe an account that attacks Tesla". What do you believe is more likely:
1. A random person wakes up one day (maybe an Big Oil shill!) and says, 'I think I'm just gonna randomly hate on Tesla, make a bunch of stuff up, and risk my livelihood on the lies'.
2. An investor starts doing due diligence and finds a lot of holes in the Tesla story, then dedicates their online presence to spreading that message.
1 is possible, but I'll bet 2 is far more likely. So many people are going to get a rude awakening if this thing goes down. If I recall correctly, HN loved Theranos too; only after the fraud was revealed did people claim it was obvious.
I see no possible comparison to Theranos. HN was skeptical from the start and called out the fraud early. Theranos never had a product. Tesla may have its faults, but there’s no question that they’ve built and sold hundreds of thousands of cars.
Whoever said cars could not be created? That argument ignores the nuance of everything regarding manufacture quality and scale w/computer-vision driven robots, full self-driving, the autonomous taxi Tesla network, etc.
I don’t agree with the concept of forming a high-level conclusion about the general nature of a source of information, and then using that to argue that you should not separately carefully analyze disparate pieces of content from that source.
Nobody is saying you need so much spare time to rigorously analyze every source. That would be a disingenuous false dilemma. Instead, just apply slightly more effort than your stated dismissive heuristic.