The person who was downvoted didn't say that negative experiences are from Musk haters.

He correctly predicted that his positive experience will be downvoted by Musk haters even though it's as valid as negative experiences shared by other people that were not downvoted.

That's clear bias and so obvious that it can be called ahead of time.

He didn't write anything less valid that the upvoted complaints and shouldn't be downvoted by anyone.

> The person who was downvoted didn't say that negative experiences are from Musk haters.

I got the...pretty strong implication from it. I didn't downvote them, but it did rub me the wrong way for exactly the implication that the people with negative experiences are from Musk haters.

There are two sentences that, taken together, seem very dismissive of people who have negative experiences:

> Everyone hates it (and given the dumpster fire at Twitter right now, everyone really loves to hate Tesla).

> But this software is working folks.

"Everyone hates it" and the parenthetical reference to Twitter really leans into the idea that people who dislike it feel that way for ideological reasons and not their own personal experience with the vehicle.

That's strongly reinforced by the next sentence that states "This software is working folks", which is a flat categorical statement that contradicts the experiences of the people who dislike it.

So, I didn't downvote, but if I did it would be exactly for the implication that the people who dislike it didn't have valid reasons for disliking it.

I downvoted because I downvote anyone who preemptively complains / invites downvotes and assumes that they’ll be doled out in bad faith. It pollutes the conversation and is the cheapest form of sophistry. It’s no different than setting up an argument that ends with “and if you disagree, that just shows how right I am!”