Tesla removes Disney+ from vehicles amid Elon Musk's Twitter beef with Bob Iger

News@lemmy.world – 448 points – 7 months ago

Tesla removes Disney+ from vehicles amid Elon Musk's Twitter beef with Bob Iger

Tesla has removed Disney+ from some of its vehicles amid Elon Musk having an online fight with Disney CEO Bob Iger. The fight started when Disney halted its advertising on X after Musk agreed with and amplified antisemitic content, for which he eventually apologized.

Every week, there’s a new drama with Elon Musk on X, formerly known as Twitter. It sometimes indirectly affects Tesla, but this time, it affects it directly.

The current drama stems from Musk giving support to an antisemitic post on X, which he didn’t initially apologize for, though admitted that it was a mistake a week later. He further apologized but was already attacking Disney. In the meantime, the result was a massive backlash, where many companies stopped advertising on X, including Apple and Disney.

Musk took a particular issue with frequent right-wing target Disney – in the interview when he apologized for the tweet, he attacked advertisers for pulling out almost in the same breath.

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments

Imagine buying an extremely expensive luxury vehicle, whose features are completely at the whim of some thin skinned billionaire.

Just remotely turning on and off different things in your car depending on who pissed him off, or pandered to him, that week.

LOL. Teslas cars are, for the most part, not "expensive luxury vehicles". The brand as a whole is on par with Ford in terms of pricing. The air of luxury is yet another fallacy we cooked up in our heads with no evidence to support it; just like "Elon is a genius".

Look, Elon single handedly builds rockets to Mars. He built your Tesla and it's basically a spaceship with wheels. What could possibly be more luxurious?

Firmware update: vehicle now blocked from all McDonald’s drive-thru’s after Elon spilled his coffee this morning. It was hot.

The lawsuit you're referring to is about a poor old woman who got second degree burns, took McD to court and won, all while being slandered by the media for being some litigation happy grifter. Just saying.

I am aware, yes. The injuries she got were pretty bad. The attorneys also successfully argued that McDonald’s coffee was substantially hotter than any other coffee and that the degrees of difference caused the need for skin grafts. Colder coffee would simply not have caused that severity of injury.

But, as we all know: that doesn’t make for good headlines. So ‘woman sues over hot coffee’ is what stuck.

And the whole "she spilled some mildly hot coffee and got dollar signs in her eyes" narrative was cooked up by McDonald's. They couldn't win in court, so they tried to shape the public narrative to portray the poor woman as seeking a payday.

In reality, she only initially wanted McDonald's to pay her medical bills. They could have made the entire thing go away for $20,000. Instead, McDonald's opted to spend likely millions not only on lawyers, but on a public relations campaign to defame this poor woman.