this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
689 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
71884 readers
4883 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure. That's the reason.
I don't think that's what they meant. I think they are just saying that people are still buying EVs, but they are just going to Chinese and other manufacturers instead of buying a Tesla. The article specifically calls out the stupid shit Elon has been doing.
Not even sure it's that true though. Afaik BYD is only the 14th most popular car in Denmark, and European brands have risen from around ~28% last year to ~40% this year. Sure, Chinese carmakers have had some growth - but we're talking in the order of something between 2 - 4% of the market. Might be more popular in other countrues
I wonder where you're getting this information. BYD alone is second worldwide if you account for the US market, and 1st if you don't.
59% of all EVs sold in January of this year were Chinese.
Which is important because about a year ago the headlines were saying EV sales were collapsing. In fact, it was just Tesla having less market share of new EVs sold because other manufacturers got off their ass.
Ah. Good to know- I didn't read the article, but that's kind of my point, really. Most people don't, and media outlets know that. The headline is all that "carries". A better headline would include the Nazi stuff AND Chinese EVs. I think they deliberately avoided that and tucked it in the article.
The headline to me clearly is stating that people are not buying Teslas and are buying alternative Chinese based EVs instead. I think that anyone that's heard Elon's name over the past 6 months can read between the lines and understand the causation here.
Well - I would hope. But that's not the same as putting it in there is it.
"Tesla sales drop as EU consumers choose Chinese brands plus Musk is y'know WINK"
I mean, I can see why they didn't go with that one but still. There are plenty of people who don't understand Elmo is an out-and-out nazi, cozy with putin and Peter Thiel and will destroy the country as soon as possible. Not mentioning him and his drugged-out asinine ideas in the headline is a missed opportunity.
The title isn't there to tell the whole story though. It should give a high level summary and then the details are in the article. If you hypothetically put something like what you suggested, it still doesn't give all of the context, and the title would need to be longer to include the history of Musk, his drug use, his position with Tesla, etc, and you can't put that all in the title. I'm all for dunking on that Nazi whenever we can, but I personally don't think that the title of this article deserves any criticism, especially in the age of clickbait titles that don't give anything, this one is decently descriptive.
I’ll give you that. I just want more. Elmo’s such a stain that not factoring it directly to Tesla-going-down stories seems like skimping.
My dude you can't admit you didn't read the article then defend the fact that you didn't read it like that. Just read it and then comment lol
My comment is about the headline. Yes?
I read that. Everyone read that. That's what my comment is referring to.
You could just say, "you're right, I probably should have."
Try it sometime, it's nice.
"the headline is wrong"
Wahhhh you didn't read the article!
"that's true. you're right. I probably should have. Where I would then return to the single sentence that I'm referring to and nothing will have changed. Do you even understand what I'm talking about? Because that would be nice."