Hacker News Reader

Comment by forapurpose | Hacker News Reader

How can we tell if it's authentic without independently knowing what the truth is? There are many, many people who are good at sounding convincing while being dishonest. Human beings have very limited capability to discern the truth based on presentation, and IMHO one of our greatest weaknesses is that most of us believe we're secretly good at it.

View on HN

We can tell that the tone is authentic. The language doesn't hedge. It makes clear, verifiable claims about the facts of the situation. If they are lying, we will almost certainly find out in the trial process. An inauthentic message would be one that hedges and avoids making specific, falsifiable claims.

We perceive this tone as authentic because it makes claims that an uncertain or lying PR department wouldn't have the nerve, authority, or legal standing to make. In that way, it is an unforgeable signal. Of course it's possible to forge in the moment, but then it makes your situation 100x worse when you inevitably get called out later. Which is why people afraid of being called out later can't do it.

How do you know the tone is authentic? People who lie are very good at looking confident. That is how it works.

And being totally certain about whether fuzzy incident happened/not happened usually means you are aware of peoples bias toward looking confident - or that you jumped to conclusion without really investigating all the conflicting evidence.

Like I said, in my original comment, if you are a rational actor and you did mess up in a circumstance like this, you have two options: You can own up to it, or you can lie. If you're going to lie, you have two options: Use vague language and make fuzzy assertions, or confidently, directly, and clearly make counter-claims. If you were at fault, and there is a pending legal case, pursuing option two will inevitably lead to your exposure not only for the original wrongdoing, but for lying about it later. Any rational actor evaluating their options would play this through and realize this. Therefore, we can conclude either Elon is so divorced from reality that he doesn't care about the obvious negative consequences, or, that he is being authentic in his messaging here. And while Elon certainly may be off in his own little world in a number of ways, I personally don't think he's crazy enough to outright lie in a message like this.

It is blog post and email, most likely scrutinized by PR experts. Written to sound convincing, because it is the goal and the job of people writing it. Nothing wrong with that. It is not something sent to court, so your rational actor theories based on judge punishing them don't apply. It is also very general, so there is not all that much judge would punish them for, even if untrue. (Unless they would lie about dude being contractor, but there is literally zero reason to lie about that as it is mostly irrelevant.)

There is not much specific that you could make inferences from, but there are general claims truth for majority of lawsuits phrased as something specific (trials being expensive, tesla employing contractor).

The rest is words made to make you feel good for working for Tesla (little company fighting good cause surrounded by ennemies). Again, this does not prove anything related to lawsuit, but it is PR in action - if it is either insincere or cultish. Either way, it is PR nothing else.

> It is blog post and email, most likely scrutinized by PR experts. Written to sound convincing, because it is the goal and the job of people writing it. Nothing wrong with that.

Everyone above is on the same page here. This is PR. Why keep re-stating this?

> It is not something sent to court, so your rational actor theories based on judge punishing them don't apply.

Who claimed that a judge would punish lies in this piece? Those above you are referring to the "court of public opinion", not legal ramifications. If Tesla's claims here are disproven in court, this piece gives the media a lot of ammunition to use to lambast Tesla with later.

> It is also very general, so there is not all that much judge would punish them for, even if untrue. (Unless they would lie about dude being contractor, but there is literally zero reason to lie about that as it is mostly irrelevant.)

The piece makes several assertions that are quite specific. Number of people involved in the situation, circumstances of termination of the plaintiff and, importantly, asserting that the actions taken were right and just, leaving them no graceful way to backtrack later and claim that the actions on the part of the company were a mistake and the fault of some individuals who can be thrown under the bus.

> There is not much specific that you could make inferences from, but there are general claims truth for majority of lawsuits phrased as something specific (trials being expensive, tesla employing contractor).

There are specific claims made. No inferences required. See my point above for examples of claims that I think are particularly impactful.

> The rest is words made to make you feel good for working for Tesla (little company fighting good cause surrounded by ennemies).

So you are thinking this is a fluffy PR piece with language that doesn't convey much information but placates the reader? I'd like to see examples of what you're reading there that strikes you as platitudinous.

> Again, this does not prove anything related to lawsuit,

Nobody is claiming that this piece proves anything. It simply makes claims which will then need to be proven in court.

> but it is PR in action - if it is either insincere or cultish.

What about this piece strikes you as insincere or cultish? Nothing about this piece seems crafted to rally folks on brand loyalty or warped worldview.

> Either way, it is PR nothing else.

That's been established. Repeatedly. Everyone above you has agreed that this is PR. We're just saying that it's good PR.

This isn’t a stare down at your local pub. Tesla committed to stating as fact what happened. If they are lying about it, any judge will rake them over the coals. For lying. They would likely lose this case for lying. And let’s watch how the plaintiff’s attorney doesn’t turn around a file a defamation suit.

While you are right in that we tend to form opinions based on limited information, I'd say in this case it is likely to be warranted.

What I try to look out for are statements that are easily disproven by the other side if false. No highly paid PR person would release those, thus if they are there, they're likely to be true.

Now with those easily disproven claims in this press release as cornerstones of what is the truth, I can't come up with data points that would drastically alter my conclusion.

Now all that's left to do is hope that that isn't due to my limited imagination and wait for the opposition to make new claims or disprove the points made.

If it’s not true the lawsuit will be really expensive .

> How can we tell if it's authentic without independently knowing what the truth is

Well, if it is in a corporate press release you can certainly KNOW that it is NOT authentic.

First time hearing about this.

Seeing the first 5 bullet points was enough for me to pretty safely guess this is much about a lawyer out for $$ from Tesla.

Especially this:

The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system.

The lawyer apparently forgot that Tesla/Elon can easily hire a few dozen lawyers without any strain...

IMHO

the lawyer in this case === Patent Troll Lawyers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com