zfg

> Of course GM still sells way fewer cars than Tesla!

GM sells more cars than Tesla, fewer EVs.

Tesla won't be able to fix the brand damage while Musk remains at the company.

The battery charge curve is not flat. It will peak and then taper.

> It can apparently outrace a Porsche 911, while simultaneously towing a Porsche 911.

There's no value in believing Tesla's lies:

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE

It's such a dumb thing to lie about but lying is just part of the company culture at Tesla. Here's the lead engineer of the Cybertruck trying to rationalize the lies:

https://x.com/wmorrill3/status/1746266437088645551

When not even your engineers possess basic honesty then you've got a sick company culture.

Nope. Here's a corporation that tried to restrict speech and failed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. It is intentionally elevating freedom of speech to a precept that is fundamental to the constitution of the state.

You have people in this thread asserting that freedom of speech is an inherent right while simultaneously supporting a corporation's ability to infringe that right and suppress speech through petty punishments.

Your main problem is that you're misconstruing the nature of freedom. Freedom isn't merely freedom from things, it's also the freedom to actually do things.

And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions.

The judiciary is a branch of government.

You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

It is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does.

If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.

> This is not a 1st amendment issue.

It absolutely is. Freedom of speech means free speakers. If you're going to face petty punishments for the rest of your days because your criticized the "wrong" people then you are not a free speaker.

If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery, most especially and particularly if you're in a position of power.

> Oh man, I ruined their anniversary with my shit talk on the internet.

No. Think more clearly. Dystopian pervasive and intensive surveillance ruined their anniversary. Willful violation of a citizen's free speech rights ruined their anniversary.

> Miller says he was told at Radio City that he could appeal the ban if he wanted to but said it’s not a priority for him.

Hooray. Extra legal frameworks administered by corporations serving their own corporate interest.