I could push back on some of these but I mainly want to ask about this:
> the way he publicly disparaged people who were killed by their Tesla using telemetric data that are supposed to be confidential
In the cases I've seen, Tesla pulled data showing that the people "killed by their Tesla" were either not paying attention at all (contrary to Tesla's explicit warnings), or were driving without the automated features enabled after all despite initial media claims to the contrary. Is this what you consider "disparagement" or do you have more egregious examples?
I did not particularly keep track, I do not dedicate my life to obsessively follow even massive dangerous idiots. There were at least 3 major ones.
That said, yes. What you said is evidence that he is mean-spirited and does not follow the rules he set himself. Of course, having an ethical behaviour sometimes means making hard choices. It is not about doing things that are understandable in context, it’s about doing the right thing, even if it is at a cost to you in the short term. He does not have any history of doing so.
These people are dead. Spitting on their graves because he is annoyed by their family is absolutely unethical. Particularly since their main failure was to believe the smoke and mirrors about FSD, which is itself another ethical clusterfuck.
If he had a beef, he could have sued for defamation, where he could have shown his data in an ethical and confidential manner. He knows the deal, he’s been in more than his fair share of defamation lawsuits, on either side.
I don't find it particularly mean-spirited to say "actually, our product didn't kill him, he wasn't using that feature." I don't even find it especially pejorative to note that the victim at that particular time was ignoring warnings and reading a newspaper; most of us do something foolish occasionally.
But that's just me. I doubt further debate on this would be productive.
Add how he took a multibillion payout while laying off 14% ish of Tesla staff. He seems to use shareholder Tesla equity to bail out his other misadventures. To add insult to injury he laughed with Trump about firing unionizing workers.
Oh he likes to bully people with lawsuits. Amber Heard comes to mind (he bullied the studio behind Aquaman).
Searching for it is the only way you can find the word, because tweets containing the word are "reach-limited" (and appropriately labelled to the author, so they are discouraged from using that "slur" ever again).
worth pointing out that banned and visibility limited in certain scenarios are not the same thing, which might be causing some confusion in this thread.
> His whole history proves that his moral principles go first, not money.
Having moral principles is completely orthogonal to being ethical. Ayn Rand had lots of moral principles and she was still a reckless sociopath. One of his moral principles is that greed is good, and his actions certainly are consistent with this one.
He did lose a lot of money on Twitter, but you can hardly call that him following his moral principles, considering how things actually happened.
> He doesn't care if his defense of free-speech causes him revenue losses on X.
Whose free speech is he defending? There is no evidence that he champions free speech, merely that he supports however agrees with him and edgelords. He is more than happy to harass, intimidate, bully, and be a general nuisance to those whose opinions he finds objectionable.
His whole history tells otherwise.