| > 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. |