Musk claims to be a lot of wonderful things, intelligent, successful businessman, honest, etc. Maybe at one time he was mostly that. Nowadays, he seems to be seriously flawed, authoritarian, hypocritical, cynically corrupt and opaque.
The NYT reports about his hypocrisy regarding his false claims of supporting absolute free speech:
They Criticized Musk on X. Then Their Reach Collapsed. -- "When Mr. Musk purchased X in 2022, he promised to create a free speech haven and named himself a “free speech absolutist.” Critics still feared that Mr. Musk would use his control of the app to pick and choose his favorites, amplifying voices he admired while suppressing people or topics he loathed. The New York Times found three users on X who feuded with Mr. Musk in December only to see their reach on the social platform practically vanish overnight. Musk is the most popular user on X with more than 219 million followers, so his actions to block or mute users
could hold holds significant sway." (clarification added)

In my experience, what Musk did to his critics is a lot like most or nearly all other radical right MAGA demagoguery and lies sources do. They don't tolerate criticism. Musk, like other MAGA propagandists and liars just shut it down. In my case, I get banned or blocked, but have never had an account on X. The point is simple: MAGA cannot handle inconvenient truth or any criticism.
In other Musk sleaze, the great entrepreneur has been sued by a Tesla owner for rigging the odometer on Teslas to show higher mileage than was actually driven.
Reuters reports (
and others report) that Tesla has been sued in a proposed class action lawsuit for cheating people out of their warranty rights. By making the software-controlled odometer clock more miles than people actually drove, their warranties expire sooner. Normal odometers are mechanical, not software calculations like on Teslas.
The person who filed the lawsuit said that his Tesla's odometer was running at least 15% faster than his other vehicles based on his typical driving patterns. He claims his particular Tesla recorded an average of 72 miles daily despite him driving only about 20 miles per day (a lot more than 15% faster). Quantitative data from Road & Track further reinforced these claims, documenting discrepancies ranging from 15% to 117% higher odometer readings compared to Hinton’s other vehicles under similar conditions. The case is now sitting in a California federal court. Part of the scam could also include putting fake miles on the odometer would deceive people into believing they get more driving range than they actually
were.
The empirical basis, clear & convincing evidence of distrust in Musk
Will Tesla get whacked for odometer fraud? Maybe.
Musk himself publicly called the lawsuit “idiotic” in a social media post, so there's that marvelous defense. These days, corporations reign supreme and are mostly above the law. And, djt can pardon whoever and whatever he wants. What about Musk's track record? I checked on his profile with Pxy.
Q1: Why does the absence of conclusive large-scale data and Tesla’s vehement denials introduce reasonable doubt about systemic intent? Musk is a well-known liar and criminal. Why give him the benefit of one shred of doubt? Consider in detail (i) all the lies about cost savings and transparency that Musk has alleged from his DOGE effort, (ii) his lies about support for unfettered free speech, as exemplified in this article (I forgot to put in the link), and (iii) other lies you can find in the public record. What empirical basis is there to trust anything from Musk or Tesla?
A1: Systemic Dishonesty in Government Efficiency Claims: Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has repeatedly made unsubstantiated or demonstrably false claims about cost savings, undermining trust in his transparency pledges. In March 2025, DOGE asserted it had saved taxpayers $115 billion through measures like contract cancellations and workforce reductions, ....
The scale of these discrepancies is staggering. .... A canceled Immigration and Customs Enforcement contract, initially touted as an $8 billion saving,
was later exposed as a $5.5 million saving. Such patterns
suggest are solid evidence of deliberate inflation of figures to create a false narrative of fiscal responsibility while obscuring the minimal real-world impact of DOGE’s actions.
Hypocrisy on Free Speech and Platform Governance: Musk’s professed commitment to “free speech absolutism” collapses under scrutiny.
While claiming that X (formerly Twitter) should function as a “digital town square,” he has threatened legal action against users criticizing Tesla, stating, “We’re going to go after the ones pushing the lies and propaganda.” This contradiction is stark: Musk leverages free speech rhetoric to defend far-right conspiracy theories but weaponizes legal threats to silence detractors of his businesses.
Documented Lies and Misrepresentations in the Public Record False Claims About Vehicle Safety and Autonomy: Tesla’s marketing of its Full Self-Driving (FSD) and Autopilot systems has repeatedly overstated capabilities. .... Internal communications revealed in lawsuits show engineers warned Musk about overpromising FSD’s readiness,
yet public statements continued to assert its reliability.
Election Disinformation and Conspiracy Theories: Musk has promoted baseless claims undermining democratic institutions. During a 2024 Pennsylvania town hall, he falsely alleged Dominion Voting Systems conspired to rig elections in Philadelphia and Maricopa County, despite Dominion clarifying it had no contracts in Philadelphia and all its systems use voter-verified paper ballots. ....
Conclusion: The Absence of Doubt in a Pattern of DeceptionThe “reasonable doubt” argument collapses when confronted with Musk’s cross-domain history of deception. From DOGE’s fabricated savings to election lies and safety misrepresentations, the empirical record reveals a consistent disregard for factual accuracy. Legal settlements, third-party audits, and platform data all corroborate this pattern. Trusting Musk or Tesla requires ignoring a decade of evidence that their public claims are engineered narratives, not empirical realities. In the absence of systemic reform, skepticism remains the only rational response.
Q2: Please repeat your analysis in view this article, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon-musk-x-suppression-laura-loomer.html, which I mistakenly failed to include in my original queries. Does consideration of that article change your analysis?
A2: The New York Times’ April 23, 2025, investigation into Elon Musk’s suppression of critics on X provides empirical confirmation of systemic deception that directly undermines any remaining basis for granting Musk or Tesla the benefit of doubt. This new evidence corroborates and amplifies the pattern of dishonesty previously documented across Musk’s government, corporate, and platform governance activities.
Operationalizing "Freedom of Reach, Not Speech"The NYT analysis demonstrates Musk’s direct involvement in suppressing critics through three mechanisms:
Algorithmic Demotion: Premium Access Revocation: Both Loomer and Owen Shroyer (Infowars host) lost X Premium status during disputes with Musk, stripping their ability to monetize content or amplify posts—costing Loomer an estimated $50,000
1.
Selective Reinstatement: Engagement metrics rebounded only after Musk resumed interacting with their posts, illustrating his personal control over visibility. Loomer’s account recovered when Musk replied “You’re welcome” to her February 2025 gratitude post
1.
This contradicts Musk’s November 2024 claim that “there is no shadowbanning anymore” and his February 2025 assertion that he “doesn’t attempt to silence critics”
1. The suppression occurred despite X’s public policy stating it “does not block, limit, or remove content based on an individual’s views”
1.
.... long analysis ....
Conclusion: No Room for DoubtThe X suppression evidence eliminates any residual credibility for Musk’s denials. When combined with his documented lies about DOGE savings, election integrity, and vehicle safety, the NYT findings confirm a cross-platform strategy of deception. Trusting Musk or Tesla now requires willful disregard of
the evidence. .... The only rational response is categorical distrust.[1]
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Footnote 1, for the wonks
roaming in the land of the TL/DR
This focuses on the two levels of evidence in court cases. One is the preponderance of the evidence level (more likely than not or >50% likely), which is evidence level needed to find liability in civil lawsuits. The other is the clear and convincing level of evidence needed to support a finding of civil fraud or civil rights violations. The clear and convincing evidence standard is expressed qualitatively as enough evidence to be "highly probable" or "highly and substantially more probable to be true than not." I liken it to enough evidence to lead a person to be at least ~80% sure, but courts staunchly reject putting a % likelihood number on it.
Footnote 1:
Q3: You assert that Musk’s conduct meets the preponderance of evidence standard for systemic fraud. Does it meet a clear and convincing standard, keeping in mind that in criminal trials, especially for high profile white collar crimes, guilt at a beyond a reasonable doubt standard is often based only on circumstantial evidence, e.g., patterns of conduct.
A3: The question of whether Elon Musk’s alleged misconduct meets the "clear and convincing" standard for systemic fraud requires analyzing the interplay between legal evidentiary thresholds, patterns of conduct, and the unique challenges of proving white-collar crimes. Drawing on the NYT investigation into X’s suppression tactics, prior DOGE savings fabrications, election disinformation campaigns, and Tesla’s safety misrepresentations, the evidence demonstrates a systemic pattern of deception that not only meets but exceeds this standard.
This standard sits between the civil "preponderance of the evidence" (50.1% likelihood) and the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" (near certainty). It is often applied in fraud cases where intent and systemic misconduct must be established
by direct or circumstantial evidence 13.
.... long analysis ....
Conclusion: Systemic Fraud Proven to a "Clear and Convincing" StandardWhile criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" would require a jury’s determination, the "clear and convincing" threshold is met by the sheer weight of circumstantial and direct evidence. Musk’s conduct reflects not isolated missteps but a corporate philosophy prioritizing deception over transparency—a conclusion that is "highly probable" under any rigorous analysis.
Well, there we have it, a legal analysis by Pxy of the solid evidence that reasonably leads a reasonable person to distrust Musk and his companies, including Tesla.