Is there any reason not to believe this is just a hoax? I am immediately skeptical I see reported only on Threads (or FB, IG, Twitter, Bluesky, etc) and not corroborated.
I think the argument against that for the rapper is that he's pushing the Cybertruck as some tough/rich/machismo thing. Being stranded roadside is quite some distance from that. Who out there is going to want to listen to his song on the back of him suffering this kinda drama?
Another argument for it being legit is that he has to know that they'd send advance warning and that it would be a combo of certified and email (to get a quicker result). I've been pursued legally and there were email/physical copies.
This is not the first time Tesla has done it, either. Before the 3 was released, a customer found some references to it in their software and made some posts.
Next thing they know, their vehicle's firmware was forcibly downgraded to a version that had no references, was forcibly version-locked at that firmware version, and had the Ethernet and OBD ports disabled.
They'll also release misleading telemetry data at press conferences to throw you under the bus. In one fatal accident, on the topic of AP/FSD, at a press conference: "Well, we do the right thing, and vehicle telemetry tells us that the car was warning the driver to pay attention before the accident".
When the NTSB report came out, it was found that there had been one attention warning issued, and it was eighteen minutes before the collision.
There is a huge difference between rolling back software while disabling some ports compared to completely bricking a vehicle as it is being driven. We can recognize they are both wrong and abuses without pretending they are equivalent actions.
I think the question we should be focusing on is why this is possible in the first place? It’s cute when Apple or Google can kick you out of your phone, but something like a car.. highlights the absurdity of the situation we’re in.
> I think the question we should be focusing on is why this is possible in the first place?
No, that's specious reasoning. OP points out the possibility this is not even real. Do you have any indication that any of this is true? That should be your first step. However, you're somehow arguing that hypotheticals serve as any kind of justification, and a potentially made-up scenario is worth anything.
I think what he meant is that whether or not, in that particular instance, it happens to be the case that the company does not feel sufficiently motivated to actually do this (maybe his singing wasn't offensive enough, or the company just happens to have enough reasonable people in their staff right now), the much bigger issue is that they could theoretically do this. Which I think is a very important point.
It should be provably, technically impossible to do this - or at the very least, there should be heavy penalties (say, 10-20% of annual revenue) for doing this without proper judicial ruling. A company should only be able to afford 1 or 2 errors like this.
Are you free just because your master happens to like you and let you do what you want? Obviously not, since he could change his mind at any time.
Would they really put "comply with cease & desist to reactivate" on the screen?