Isn't everyone who regularly publishes "trying to build a brand". And isn't everyone who covers Elon Musk critically trying to incorporate that into their brand? How do you distinguish between "I analyze Elon Musk's statements for accuracy" and "Elon Musk hatred"?
The thing that makes it really easy to distinguish though is that facts are entangled. That ends up making lies contagious.
So when he starts talking about a government conspiracy and my surprise goes way up, it becomes pretty easy to check his facts, and realize the reason I'm so surprised is because he is lying.
As another example of the contagious nature of lies, when he lies about the projected cost of Starlink, the natural result is that anyone who thinks Starlink could be profitable is insane - it costs more than the economy, according to him, since he gave an estimate that was three orders magnitude higher than reasonable estimates. Therefore, when he moves forward to talk about Shotwell, he gets put in a situation where making his claims seem reasonable requires he continue to keep up the lies. So instead of calling her a good executive he makes sexists arguments as to to why she is so stupid. His previous lies were contagious and so he was forced into sexism in order to cover them up, because the entangled fact of a good executive having been involved in the business decisions would cast a lot of doubt on his claims.
And... it isn't that hard to criticize Elon Musk without lying? He isn't perfect, at all. I don't think its necessary for a critic to invent things to criticize rather than to just tell the truth?
I'm completely neutral to CSS. If he lies, that's bad. If he's not lying, that's not bad. I don't watch his videos.
But I think there's nothing wrong with someone who is trying to build a brand (what many content creators are trying to do) taking a firm Elon-love or Elon-hate stance. That's what I was responding to.
> it isn't that hard to criticize Elon Musk without lying
I think that's very true. I also think people who praise him lie almost as often. I don't understand why. There is plenty to criticize or praise him on that's true.
He lies; that is very core to my point and it isn't an if. Just fact check him. He lies. I'll save you some time:
Here is a link to an article he screenshots: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/12/spacex-starlink-satell...
Here is the time where he shows the screenshot: https://youtu.be/2vuMzGhc1cg?t=441
Here is a sample from the debunking article about him which I linked in my first post:
> 7:16 - CSS claims that the reported aspirational costs for the satellites is $250,000 each, citing this article.
> A VERY IMPORTANT NOTE ON THIS SECTION OF THE VIDEO!
> CSS screenshot the headline for this article, but removed “and Falcon 9 Costs Less than $30 Million”. Why? Because they just finished the section where they claimed Falcon 9 refurbished launches cost SpaceX $55 million each. This is a clear case of intentional dishonesty, rather than so many other instances that could be written off as merely being mistakes. It is far from the only such instance where their motives are obvious as well. Getting back to the topic at hand.
My point is that his brand is these lies. He is like a flat earther conspiracy theorist. The lies are the point. The worldview is the point. His video isn't starting with lets look at the facts and get to the truth. Its starting with lets find a narrative that conforms to a view. You don't make the number of reasoning errors he makes while being genuine. Contrasting his behavior with reasonable critics - like Munro - is very revealing. Their opinions vary based on the observed facts instead of facts varying based on the predetermined opinions.
