Tesla’s participation in the Vancouver International Auto Show was canceled due to safety concerns stemming from recent protests at Tesla dealerships. Event organizers offered Tesla multiple opportunities to withdraw, but ultimately removed them to protect attendees and staff. These protests are linked to Elon Musk’s controversial political affiliations and actions, particularly his association with Donald Trump. The decision to remove Tesla was supported by some, who cited concerns about potential vandalism or confrontations.
Read More
The Vancouver Auto Show will not feature Tesla vehicles this year. This decision follows Tesla’s continued refusal to participate in the event, a choice attributed to the automaker’s differing sales and marketing strategies. The absence marks a significant change for the show, as Tesla has been a popular draw in previous years. Organizers expressed disappointment but remain committed to showcasing a diverse range of vehicles.
Read More
Tesla’s stock has plummeted over 50 percent since December, prompting Elon Musk to accuse rivals and liberals of a coordinated attack. Donald Trump, defending Musk, claims a “Radical Left” boycott is illegally targeting Tesla. Trump plans to buy a Tesla to publicly support Musk, framing the situation as an unfair attack on a “great American.” This comes amidst widespread criticism of Musk and Trump’s actions dismantling government services and harming vulnerable populations. Trump’s defense ignores the evidence linking his own policies to Tesla’s financial struggles.
Read More
Amidst a backdrop of political commentary and attacks on Tesla, Elon Musk used his X platform to promote the electric vehicle manufacturer. This promotional activity coincided with a significant drop in Tesla’s stock price, exceeding 15% on Monday—one of the worst trading days since its IPO. The decline followed accusations of Musk’s involvement in far-right activities and the launch of a “Tesla Takedown” boycott campaign. Musk responded by falsely accusing prominent figures of funding the protests and spreading unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about attacks on Tesla properties.
Read More
Elon Musk’s controversial “Department of Government Efficiency” has sparked widespread outrage, resulting in mass layoffs and budget cuts within the federal government. Simultaneously, a burgeoning protest movement, Tesla Takedown, is targeting Musk’s personal wealth through boycotts and efforts to lower Tesla’s stock price, citing his extremism and damaging actions. This movement aims to pressure Tesla shareholders and the board to address Musk’s toxicity, leveraging the connection between his personal brand and Tesla’s value. While Tesla’s stock has seen recent dips, particularly in Europe following Musk’s controversial political endorsements, the long-term impact of the protests remains uncertain. Tesla Takedown represents a significant escalation of corporate accountability movements, given Musk’s close ties to the White House.
Read More
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against several major advertisers, alleging antitrust violations for withdrawing advertising from X (formerly Twitter), highlights a contradiction in his professed support for free speech and free markets. The suit claims the advertisers colluded to boycott X due to concerns over its content moderation policies, causing financial harm to the platform. However, this action constitutes a legitimate market response to perceived risks and is a form of protected expression, not an antitrust violation. Musk’s argument contradicts his purported dedication to free market principles by seeking to compel private companies to continue advertising on his platform regardless of their concerns.
Read More
X, formerly known as Twitter, has amended its lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), adding Lego, Nestlé, and several other major brands as defendants. The amended complaint alleges these companies participated in a coordinated advertising boycott following Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform in 2022, allegedly costing X billions in revenue. The boycott stemmed from concerns over X’s revised content moderation policies and departure from the WFA’s brand safety initiative. X argues this collective action stifled competition and improperly dictated its brand safety standards.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker