I don't see why would he spend more to make website less accessible. Not fixing bugs - yes, just about everyone does so. But breaking it intentionally costs money.
Tesla's aren't THE most accessible (by cost) EV out there, but SpaceX def is.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-layoffs-accessibility/
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-sent-musk-risks-paid...
SpaceX is... an accessible EV? What?
No, I don't. It obviously is trying to say something about accessibility and SpaceX, but I don't see how the sense of accessbility being discussed in the thread even applies to SpaceX, much less what claim is being made.
Just because it’s the same word does not mean it’s the same meaning.
This is a comment thread discussing accessibility at Twitter, in a post about Twitter discontinuing part of its platform. It’s not a place to circlejerk Musk’s achievements, regardless how much you would want that to be so.
Explain, in exact words, what about SpaceX in any way shape or form would indicate that they know how to handle user a11y and how that would transfer over to Twitter— you know, the thing we’re actually discussing here.
Of course this used to have the side effect of breaking significant swathes of basic browser UX, especially in areas of accessibility. I assume they’re better now than they once were, but given musk’s historical behavior I assume he won’t consider breaking something like accessibility to be bad or problematic.