• A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      69·
      10 days ago

      Not absolutely, because a company being able to deactivate your purchased property for ulterior reasons is more dystopian.

      I also suspect the rapper wasn’t exactly praising the cybertruck, so that would add “for insulting misrepresenting? a company”. That’s even more dystopian.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        39·
        10 days ago

        You don’t have to suspect anything, watch the video. He’s hyping the Cybertruck, hyping, “I’m RICH BEEYOTCH!” This is Tesla trying to distance themselves from that message.

        • anomnom@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          25·
          10 days ago

          While that song and message are shit, so is Tesla.

          This is peak face eating leopards content all around.

          Also I wonder if a white rapper singing the same song would have had his shit-pyramid disabled as fast.

          Tesla factories have had a racism problem for years.

    • Taokan@sh.itjust.works
      5147·
      10 days ago

      I’m just glad they got a power hungry, austistic lunatic in charge now, so everyone can see this is absolutely the end game, before this becomes normalized and people like me get called retarded for not wanting a car that can be remote deactivated.

      • ohulancutash@feddit.ukEnglish
        1146·
        10 days ago

        Autism doesn’t make someone an asshole. Let’s not normalise hatred of neurodivergence

        • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
          454·
          10 days ago

          Thank you for calling this out. Autistic should not be derogatory!

        • s@piefed.worldEnglish
          3111·
          10 days ago

          The user also dropped the R slur. The “people like me” part stands out to me as a little suspect as well.

        • Senal@programming.devEnglish
          1111·
          10 days ago

          It doesn’t but a neurodivergent person can absolutely be an arsehole.

          Its not a magic label that makes everything “quirky” and “eccentric”.

            • Senal@programming.devEnglish
              914·
              10 days ago

              And i was correcting the misconception that just because someone is neurodivergent doesn’t make them immune to being an arsehole.

              Neurodivergent people are people, with all that entails.

                • Senal@programming.devEnglish
                  42·
                  10 days ago

                  Nobody said autism is bad (in the chain im replying to), but here we are.

                  Two statements that never happened with two corrections that aren’t needed apparently.

        • Genius@lemmy.zip
          18·
          10 days ago

          I see no difference between calling him autistic and calling him narcissistic, except that one of those two mental disorders is one he claims to have a diagnosis for. Let’s fry the bigger fish first and then circle back to autism.

  • qevlarr@lemmy.world
    128·
    10 days ago

    Clippy moment 📎💬

    Unacceptable. It should be illegal to even build the capability to brick someone else’s property

    • turtlesareneat@discuss.onlineEnglish
      24·
      10 days ago

      This is a major feature of nearly all cars now. Dealerships can remotely track and disable cars when people fall behind on their payments. That’s because so many people fall behind on payments nowadays, they need easy mechanisms for dealing with it. America is cooked.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        13·
        10 days ago

        Got to love it. My crappy car doesn’t even have Bluetooth, but it does have a CD auto changer. Can’t brick my car.

    • BakerBagel@midwest.social
      121·
      10 days ago

      So here’s the neat part! They just make it so that you technically are renting the car and so they can brick it up all they want since technically they own the vehicle!

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          61·
          10 days ago

          They’ll pull the same crap they do with digital content you “buy.” Technically you’re just buying a license to use the vehicle, not actually buying the vehicle itself.

          • cole@lemdro.id
            3·
            10 days ago

            I don’t disagree, but in this case that is not true, because that is not what the terms and conditions say.

    • MeThisGuy@feddit.nl
      10·
      10 days ago

      same with the F-35s sold to other countries. and those cost a lot more than even a cybertruck. imagine it being disabled mid-flight. probably entirely possible.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        10 days ago

        I mean, that’s a tiny bit different. That’s something you want to be sure will never end up aiding a terrorist attack against you.

        Cybertrucks only kill people accidentally.

        • MeThisGuy@feddit.nl
          4·
          10 days ago

          as far as I know (which is not a whole lot) terrorists only fly commercial planes. though I’m sure you can probably find the F-35 Handbook on the War Thunder forums.

          • NotJohnSmith@feddit.ukEnglish
            2·
            10 days ago

            That’s the great thing: the government then get to decide who or what a terrorist is! - including oil rich middle East countries

    • MintyFresh@lemmy.world
      1514·
      10 days ago

      Oi! Don’t bring clippy into this! He was an innocent clip from a better era! More like a [email protected] moment 👎🖕!!

      Edit: lol my poor clippy just getting hated on

      • qevlarr@lemmy.world
        32·
        10 days ago

        I agree. I was referring to Louis Rossmann’s Clippy campaign that we should not accept this as consumers but we want technology to help us, like Clippy

        Edit: let’s not mass downvote for an innocent misunderstanding, even if they worded it a bit strongly. C’mon now

        • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
          4·
          10 days ago

          Those monsters can’t downvite clippy, he’s being held captive against his will.

          Honestly, I kinda want to make a clippy bot, hook it into a self hosted LLM and have it roleplay as clippy trapped by Microsoft. It would be a hoot for 30 minutes or so.

  • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
    81·
    10 days ago

    This is a good case to battle the shit out of Tesla in court and set a landmark verdict on the “you buy but don’t own” abuse.

    Usually this would however require that courts are capable of reaching proper verdicts, that the government actually cared about the people, that consumer protection agencies had any footing etc. Alas, all of them are infiltrated by the big capital corporations.

    • AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      10 days ago

      I mean, maybe it could work right now, considering how elmo and dump had a falling out. People might be able to leverage dumps pettiness to get a verdict on something like this. Now would be the time to try, though.

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        3·
        10 days ago

        I think this actually has a chance, but only because it affects millionaires. in any case the outcome would be very positive as it would apply elsewhere.

        • AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          9 days ago

          Eh effecting millionaires has less effect realistically, but if this could hit the billionaires by having a large settlement that cuts into revenue and effects the stock price you may see a change in tune regarding this type of behavior. Either way I agree this one could actually do something and considering the short term thinking of this administration I could see dump pushing this to Rule against tesla to spite elmo and then consequently giving us a default rulling for other vehicles. What’s the saying a broken clock can still be right twice a day, gotta take the small wins where we can right now.

  • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
    70·
    10 days ago

    Imagine:

    You have parking lots full of your cars that can’t sell because your CEO is basically in the top 5 of horrible humans.

    You have horror stories about kids burning alive in the cars because they couldn’t open the doors.

    You have a Rapper, with social following, in Detroit, Motor City, with a 100k model of your car who makes a song about how you’re fucking up, and you shut down his 100k car and send a c&d.

    Could you imagine a PR department being this bad at its job?

    He could make a music video burning the thing to the ground and make his money back.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        10 days ago

        No they just replaced it with a keyboard in a room full of cats with grok interpreting the random input.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          6·
          10 days ago

          They would never care for a room of cats. They just put the keyboard under the front door mat.

      • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
        5·
        10 days ago

        I’m sure somebody is taking responsibility for it. You can’t do stupid shit and not have somebody else to fire.

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      2·
      10 days ago

      That’s strange you don’t think the PR department takes its marching orders from their furher directly

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.techEnglish
    641·
    10 days ago

    This is what happens when you buy a car from a tech company. There is no reason that a Ts&Cs should ever come with a car - but here we are. For now, avoid any company that does things like this. Top of mind are Tesla and BMW

    • 𞋴𝛂𝛋𝛆@lemmy.worldEnglish
      221·
      10 days ago

      Calling it buying is the problem. It is proprietary internet connected garbage. It is a rental you paid buyer money for. No one owns a Tesla. No Tesla is for sale, and neither is any car that runs proprietary internet connect software. Someone else ultimately controls it. That person is the real owner. Primitive idiots struggle to understand this exceptionally simple concept. Terms and conditions are you selling your rights as a citizen willing to become a slave to someone else. It isn’t normal. It exists because people are not smart enough to say no and stand up for themselves. I don’t rent one of these shit cars, or watch TV with terms and conditions, or run shitty operating systems, or stalkerware whore myself to bezos’ camera on the front of my home as a doorbell. None of this is actually normal. It’s fools selling their rights as citizens in a democracy for peanuts and IOUs.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          92·
          10 days ago

          Give them a few years. If it’s not explicitly illegal every car company will do eventually.

        • ohulancutash@feddit.ukEnglish
          2·
          10 days ago

          Depends. Some of them require a full Ferrari support crew and can only run at Ferrari-approved tracks.

          • Damage@feddit.it
            1·
            10 days ago

            Yeah we don’t really care about the rights a few billionaires may have to play with the toys whose cost could have fed countless families.

            My outrage only works up to a… Idk, 300k€ price?

              • AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                3·
                10 days ago

                Which would work as intended no? 1 kiloeuro would be 1000 euros ergo 300000 euros. Maybe I’m just dumb and that was the point if so carry on lol

                • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
                  3·
                  10 days ago

                  Absolutely. I’m just accustomed to seeing the currency sign on the left and prefix abbreviation on the right (ex. €300k). Generally, it gets “expanded” to thousand, million, etc. So, three-hundred thousand euro. The things that amused me is thinking of a kiloeuro as a measurement unit, rather than a currency unit.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      181·
      10 days ago

      If car companies can’t remotely deactivate your vehicle, how will they be able to extort you and harass you and sell you out to the police?

    • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
      319·
      10 days ago

      This has been standard in every car made after 2003

      If your car is newer than that, the police can request the car company disable your engine.

      It’s fucked up and evil, but it isn’t new, just the first time it’s been blatantly abused

          • shininghero@pawb.social
            112·
            10 days ago

            Not suitable for this.

            GPS is a purely one-way method, with the satellites transmitting only their position and a timecode, leaving the receiver to do the triangulation. And if they did send any sort of custom data packets over that method, it would just confuse the crap out of every other receiver across most of the world, causing potential device crashes, drawing attention from ham operators worldwide…

            And also massively pissing off the US military. Turns out a lot of their equipment and munitions make use of GPS and INS, so fucking with those satellites is a no-go.

      • ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca
        91·
        10 days ago

        You might be off by a couple of years there. And even if you aren’t, the 3G network those cars would’ve relied on for communications has been shut down so remotely doing anything to your 2004 car today would be impossible.

  • JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip
    42·
    10 days ago

    Just looked up the lyrics and it’s just Huey saying he drives a cybertruck because he’s got money. I bet the only reason Musk hates it is because he’s a racist shitbag

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      10 days ago

      Gods yes. Watched half the video and he’s hyping the truck. “I’m rich BEEOTCH!” is the theme. Musk doesn’t want, ahem, “black folks”, making his truck a gansta thang.

    • FelixCress@lemmy.world
      92·
      10 days ago

      Big Huey’s track, reportedly titled “Cyberflop” based on social media buzz, lampooned the Cybertruck’s design flaws and reliability issues, echoing widespread criticisms that have plagued the vehicle since its 2019 unveiling

        • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.worldEnglish
          23·
          10 days ago

          Things that are surprising me right now (not in order):

          • Big Huey is such a non-entity. There are 3 tracks of his (& one collab) on the whole damn internet that I can see. Why did Tesla even bother?
          • The video is flattering to the deactivated item. They can afford to lose admirers right now? Why do they feel so safe?
          • There are no written records of the lyrics on the internet I could find.
          • Why does his label’s website have an offer to “buy a verse”? Dude so unfamous and lacking success he’s trying to sell clout to strangers.
          • Yet he owns a cybertruck and has only needed to make a handful of videos over the last 4 years.
          • The news wants us to think Tesla is retaliating over a dissenting view, erroneously (?!)

          The whole thing reads like a maze of mirrors. At no point does the story make actual sense. Did we really see a jumped-up vanity project get stomped by a mega corp for no actual reason?

          What explanation could make this series of events make sense? Is Huey a Tesla plant? Is this a (botched? Who knows) test balloon by the company trying to create a legal precedent for corporate powers to smash all dissent? Then why would they pick a target that was favourable to them? They must not want to prejudice the jury…

          I can’t make the pieces all fit. But I feel that it must make complete sense to one of the players.

            • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              10 days ago

              Doesn’t fit, does it? His work only really fits the profile of a passion or maybe a vanity project. His “label” selling verses in his tracks makes me think he’s really all about clout and fakey sort of posturing bullshit, so that does fit the MO of a faked C&D. Would a spoiled manchild risk a defamation* suit by falsifying legal notices from one of the largest, most oligarchic, most childishly run corporations in the world? Maybe. But that doesn’t explain why the news sites are falsely characterizing his track as a critique of the truck.

              • Libel maybe? IANAL but it seems risky
    • bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works
      191·
      10 days ago

      They do though, so thats a total lie. Try getting into your car that you paid for firmware, see if tesla locks you down.

      I’ll note none of my old cars have this problem. Don’t buy new cars people.

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      129·
      10 days ago

      Normally I would care that it’s a fake story but in this case I don’t mind spreading it. That guy needs to pay for what he has done to our country.

        • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
          34·
          10 days ago

          You know I might be just crazy enough to have even upvoted the original post.

          Seems unfair for only one side to have weaponized fake news

          • Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com
            32·
            9 days ago

            That’s always the justification isn’t it?

            See all this does is mislead people who might otherwise talk about legitimate grievances about Tesla. Now they have easily disproved bullshit to spew and will look like idiots who are trapped in liberal media bubbles if they try to talk about this with anyone who’s paying attention.

            The only advantage we have is the truth, don’t let that go.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        5·
        9 days ago

        The reason to care is that when Tesla does pull shenanigans with their cars, now everyone’s going to just call it “fake news”. This incident has just bought them all the cover in the world to be assholes.

      • Seth Taylor@lemmy.world
        51·
        10 days ago

        And I am ready to look the other way, because why should I care about Musk when he hates me? There are other priorities.

        Actually, I will begin by not even fact-checking the original post. That’s right. I will vibe-comment (I hope I’m using this at least somewhat right. I’m very old in internet years, I’m so sorry).

      • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 days ago

        No, when you spread disparaging lies about someone it only makes their critics look less trustworthy in the future. It’s like the boy who cried wolf.

        Fake news is the tool of the enemy. You don’t need it when there is plenty of truth available as ammunition.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    301·
    10 days ago

    Anyone who buys a fucking motor vehicle that comes with Terms and Conditions agreement, let alone one that can be spontaneously and remotely turned off… you’re a fucking moron. And Tesla needs to be sued into oblivion. That shit should NOT be legal.

  • bassomitron@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    10 days ago

    Assuming this is real, I don’t see how this is legal? There’s no way Tesla would win in court under any sane judge. If they bought the car outright and fully own it (i.e. didn’t lease it from Tesla), then that is the car owner’s property. The manufacturer can’t, effectively, sabotage your property without consequence. I truly hope this is not real, and if it is, they bring this to court ASAP and get precedent to squash this type of insanity right off the bat. If Tesla gets away with this bullshit–again, if it’s real–then other companies will very likely begin following suit.

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      20·
      10 days ago

      Assuming this is real, I don’t see how this is legal? There’s no way Tesla would win in court under any sane judge. If they bought the car outright and fully own it (i.e. didn’t lease it from Tesla), then that is the car owner’s property.

      I’m fairly certain that it won’t go before a judge. If Tesla doesn’t have a forced arbitration clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause in their contracts I would be truly surprised.

      The manufacturer can’t, effectively, sabotage your property without consequence.

      I don’t own a Tesla and dont have access to a US contract, but it wouldnt be far fetched that there’s something in there about Tesla reserving the right to use a kill switch at their discretion.

      I truly hope this is not real,

      You and me both. But we live in a stupid timeline, and I can no longer tell what’s outrageously real and what’s rage bait.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        22·
        10 days ago

        I don’t own a Tesla and dont have access to a US contract, but it wouldnt be far fetched that there’s something in there about Tesla reserving the right to use a kill switch at their discretion.

        In any sane country, one of the hundreds of consumer protection laws would have a judge laugh as they threw it out.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      172·
      10 days ago

      I don’t see how this is legal?

      Oh, sweet summer child. This is the USA we’re talking about. Potus shows every day that him being pissed off about something basically makes it illegal unless you have more money than him. It only follows that his subjects take his example.

      There’s no way Tesla would win in court under any sane judge.

      And more than half the legal system has been either replaced or intimidated into submission.

      Sorry if I sound terminally pessimistic here. In January I still might have held out some hope for a peaceful solution, but by now it’s clear: this country will collapse, one way or another. This is not sustainable, and there will be no peaceful transition of power. I mean they’re already putting all sorts of measures in place to make sure they “win” the next elections. And even if Democrats could win somehow - what then? The country is already fucked up. IMO, beyond repair. It needs to be replaced.

    • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      5·
      10 days ago

      The loophole is that while you own the car, you only license the software that allows it to run. They didn’t take the car away, “just” terminated the license 🤬

    • cobysev@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      10 days ago

      I mean… It depends on the terms you sign while purchasing.

      I dunno if they still do this, but over a decade ago, Apple used to put in their Terms of Service that (paraphrasing) you are only paying for the service associated with an iPhone. The physical hardware is on loan to you and still belongs to the company, and they have the right to do whatever they want with it as their property. Deactivate it remotely, recall it, wipe it, etc.

      During tech expo’s, Apple would remotely disable features of any iPhone in the area so you couldn’t take photos, record video, connect to the Internet, etc. while you were on the show floor. You had to leave the event before your phone’s capabilities returned.

      Tesla, dealing in an electronic vehicle that is connected remotely to their services, could absolutely do one of these legal contracts during the sale. And if you sign it, you have no legal leg to stand on when they disable and/or recall your vehicle.