Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Exactly — if the terminology were truly unacceptable, the FTC would likely have intervened much earlier.

Regulators implicitly allowed the ambiguity to persist, and are now attempting to reframe or correct it retroactively.

It’s possible there were political or practical considerations — for example, a belief that successful autonomous driving would make future regulation easier, or at least postpone difficult legislative debates.

We can’t know what the internal reasoning was, but the long delay suggests more than simple oversight.





>if the terminology were truly unacceptable, the FTC would likely have intervened much earlier.

Lol wtf? Next you're going to tell me Bernie Madoff wasn't that bad because the SEC didn't intervene earlier.


I’m not making a conspiracy claim, nor arguing that regulators are always reliable.

I’m describing a structural question:

Why was the terminology tolerated for years before being deemed unacceptable?

Regardless of whether one trusts the FTC/SEC/etc., two things remain true:

1. If the naming was truly deceptive from day one, early intervention would have prevented later misunderstandings.

2. The long delay created a regulatory vacuum in which ambiguity grew.

That’s the frame I’m pointing to — not defending regulators, just asking why the shift happened only now.


I assume because Tesla, via Musk 's public proclamations kept claiming full self driving was just around the corner?

If you're assertion is that the FTC should be much more sceptical of claims by corporations, then you have a point.


It's not like they weren't told multiple times to look into it. Lina Khan confirmed it was on their radar. She's one of the most pro consumer chairs we've had. She had 4 years to make a move if she thought a lawsuit was appropriate.

https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2021.08.18%2...

https://progresschamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/AV_-F...

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116199/documents/... page 40,41.


Yes — that’s one plausible explanation, and it still fits the same structural question.

Whether the delay came from optimistic expectations about imminent progress, political or economic incentives, or simple regulatory inertia, the core issue remains the same: the terminology was tolerated for a long period, and that tolerance allowed ambiguity to accumulate.

My point isn’t about defending Tesla or trusting regulators’ judgment — it’s about asking why the shift happened only after years of implicit acceptance, and what effects that delay had on public understanding and responsibility.


> Why was the terminology tolerated for years before being deemed unacceptable?

Politics and/or incompetence. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Government agencies are very transparent (implicitly historically; these days were explicitly and you can also now add outright corruption to that) in general (not just regarding Tesla specifically)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: