Hacker News Reader

> But I wonder if musk has pr firms working the social media scene?

I would say the downvotes are more due to the fact you're commenting on an article that says a certain section of what we are still calling "The Right" has incorrectly demonized Musk in this case and you decided to piggyback on the criticism of him. In addition, your extended ad hominem in response to an article you didn't read is disappointing.

> I would say the downvotes are more due to the fact you're commenting on an article that says a certain section of what we are still calling "The Right" has incorrectly demonized Musk in this case and you decided to piggyback on the criticism of him.

Okay. But why is arstechnica even defending musk. Is arstechnica musk's PR firm? Isn't that strange in and of itself? Lots of bad things get said about everyone and yet arstechnica decided to jump in on musk's defense.

That seems pretty odd to me.

> you decided to piggyback on the criticism of him.

I've criticized musk. And I've also praised him too. But the problem is that I get attacked for criticizing musk.

I just find it odd how any criticism of musk gets a swarmed response. That isn't an ad hominem. That's just wondering how strange things are.

I would be interested if arstechnica or their employees have any direct or indirect financial stake in musk's enterprises. I also would be interested if breitbart/et al have any financial stake in having musk's companies fail ( ie short positions or interests in musk's competitors ).

> Is arstechnica musk's PR firm? Isn't that strange in and of itself?

Nope. Why is it strange? I expect there is a large intersection between people who like Musk and the things he is working on and people who read Ars. In fact there is likely a large intersection between people who like Musk and his companies and people working in tech.

But hey, if global media conspiracies are your thing then sure, it's that.

You think paid shills are giving you the down votes?

Ron Paul criticized Space X for getting John McCain to put a provision into the Senate Bill that favored Space X.

1) This provision is not IN the Senate bill. 2) The provision doesn't hurt Space X, but it doesn't directly do anything for them either. 3) The provision is in a House bill, and was put there by a congressman from Alabama, not John McCain.

People don't like blatant factual errors. You can criticize Musk all you want, but it must be for things that are actually happening in reality.

Because of the factual errors in the criticism of Space X, and the fact that they appear to be coordinated, if there are any PR firms influencing this debate nefariously, its likely on the other side.

Here's the problem. Ron Paul made an attribution error. This error is being used to discredit anyone who is critical of SpaceX's role. This same error was not repeated by all the news outlets listed. One person's mistake does not discredit every other argument about government spending on SpaceX. The primary argument from places like Breitbart is that SpaceX has been a benefit to reducing costs but not yet proved sufficient reliability to be the only affordable option for an area critical to national defense.

This is a much better statement of your criticism. I think from "this point" we could a great conversation, and you might definitely win me over.

My view is that Musk has a big problem. If the main customer of his businesses is the tax payer, and the majority or very close to the majority of our tax payers are conservative, he can't be a political actor. This breeds a natural resentment that he is dealing with now.

That's because I'm a different person!

You're right that conservatives generally don't like Musk. His main attraction is his advocacy of the potential of technology to create a better future. Conservatives are generally more skeptical of the advantages of progress, and that's an important role to play in society. We need both believers who have the drive to try new things and skeptics to keep them from making stupid mistakes in their enthusiasm.

Tesla's autopilot and SpaceX's rockets offer cutting-edge technology for bargain prices, but they sacrifice the adherence to almost perfect reliability that has held the terrestrial and space transportation industries back. Skepticism about reliability might be partially motivated by dislike of his cult-like following, but it's often also rational and necessary. I think his companies will accomplish great things, and if he has to be a little more careful to please the conservative part of his funding and customer base, it will probably make him a better manager.

I always find it fascinating when people assume that "their side" is composed only of true believers, when the "other side" is only paid shills. "Russian bot" and "Soros shill" accusations are thrown around way too much.

For the most part, HN avoids making this worthless distinction. Sometimes a commenter makes this mistake and is down voted to hell.

You should probably continue to complain about down votes, that will make us see our folly! Or better yet, take it back to Reddit.

>I wish we had a media environment where about a third is pro-musk, a third is anti-musk and a third is neutral. The same with trump/obama/clinton, politics, technology, business, globalization, economics, international relations, etc.

Why? I'm legitimately curious. Why must all issues be represented with equal coverage? Does this apply to all issues?

Should moon-conspiracy theorists get one-third positive coverage?

> If all the media seems to do is praise or criticize, then I know something is wrong.

This is an odd baseline. I'm pretty sure most media criticize animal abuse and praise people who help others. If something is (mostly) objectively good or bad for most of the world, I'm not surprised that media will agree on that. There's no need to always have a devil's advocate, especially not a third of the media.

In the US are only two political parties. Yet North Korea and Russia only have one, so its not that bad.

And diversity does exists.

> In the US are only two political parties.

No. We have more than two political parties. It's just that two are dominant and they both work for the same people.

> Yet North Korea and Russia only have one, so its not that bad.

What? We are comparing ourselves to russia and nk? Is that how low we have sunk as a nation?

> And diversity does exists.

What? 2 isn't diversity. And as I pointed out, it doesn't exist in news media.

AFAIK, China only has one. And it seems to work remarkably well. At least they seem to have very smart people at the top.

I would say the bottom quintile Americans is doing orders of magnitude better than the bottom quintile of Chinese. Maybe even bottom half. This is probably true when comparing any developed nation to a developing nation.

It seems the bottom quintile Americans (WRT intelligence) took over the government...

Burn, karma, burn!