News
Tesla Fandom: Terrific or Toxic?
Tesla fans are passionate people, and it does not take a very vast amount of time to realize that. The brand itself has a certain appeal to it, and those who own the company’s most elusive products, like the 2008 Roadster, have about as much passion as those who own the $35,000 Model 3 variant. People love their Tesla products forward and backward. Usually, enthusiasm for a car company lies within the diehards that “supe” their cars up or are lifelong purchasers of the same manufacturer for a lifetime. For example, some people swear by Ford trucks, so much so that they will put a sticker on their rear windshield of a cartoon urinating on a Chevrolet logo.
The toxicity of brand loyalty lies in every camp. There is a point where loving a company you openly support comes to be too much, and your passions get in the way of being a responsible human being and considering other points of view. This is something I have noticed with some Tesla fans who are willing to attack other automakers and enthusiasts of different brands, and it seems to be based on the fact that there is a disagreement on which car company is superior.
To be clear, I think that there are a lot of amazing people in this community. I, personally, have learned a lot about Tesla vehicles in my year (so far) at Teslarati. When I came into this role as a transportation writer, I had very limited knowledge, and I considered myself to be a novice in terms of what was going on in the Tesla world. I was right.
Now, I consider myself to be an expert on the topic, but I am certainly not all-knowing, and that is okay. I continue to learn a lot from the people who have surrounded me throughout my journey as a writer, and a lot of the time, it is because many influencers in this sector are supportive, smart, and genuinely nice people.
However, there is a small selection of people in the EV community that are vicious and have let their passion for an electric car company overtake their humility. I feel that a disagreement or argument every once in a while is okay. However, having these ugly communications back and forth, on what seems to be a daily basis, is what is making a bad name for the Tesla community.
Earlier this week, Complex, a popular media and lifestyle outlet, shared the news that CEO Elon Musk had become the fourth richest man in the world. When scrolling through the replies on the Tweet that was shared, I noticed someone stating that Elon “doesn’t care about anyone but himself,” and “hasn’t done anything to help humans.”
This is where I got involved, merely stating that Elon’s mission, as described in the Tesla Master Plan, was to help humans.
This person and I traded several Tweets back and forth, and it got to the point where we both realized that minds were not going to be changed. I talked about Tesla Solar, and how it is three-times less expensive than the U.S. average, Elon’s mission as a philanthropist and entrepreneur, and I also debunked a few EV myths, like Teslas are not capable of towing or hauling.
My adversary, on the other hand, never made a relevant point. It was a discussion full of red herrings, and I decided that it was likely a waste of my time to continue. It never went past 4-5 messages to each other. The conversation simply ended, nobody was blocked, nobody was called a name, communication just halted.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
This is not something that I see very often when writing articles about other car companies. Nor do I see it when someone with a sizeable following Tweets a supportive message about an up-and-coming car company. For example, when Lucid had stated it had achieved a 517-mile EPA estimated range rating, the comments were “Make a car first,” and “Who cares.” Things of that nature.
I understand the frustration with car companies always gunning for Tesla, but how is competition a bad thing? How is the fact that all of these other car companies vocally admitting that Tesla is the benchmark a bad thing? I can’t find the answer.
Yes, Lucid needs to produce a car for the public. Yes, 517 miles is a lot of range, but we do need to see it on a production vehicle that will be delivered to a customer. Those are all reasonable assessments, but why does Lucid need to be attacked? They’re making electric cars, not gas ones. Isn’t that what this whole thing is all about?
At one point, Tesla was the “new kid on the block.” It was a little known, scrappy company looking to make a name for itself. It had its fair share of problems, and it worked through them. Other car companies are experiencing the same things Tesla did years ago. But when Tesla was new and fresh, gas car enthusiasts were saying, “Who cares,” and “They should make a car that works first.” Here we are today, over a million vehicles later, and ramping up to a yearly production rate that far exceeded anyone’s wildest imagination.
It is almost ironic to me that the same things that came out of ICE enthusiast mouths are coming out of Tesla fan’s mouths now. The Tesla loyalty is a good thing, to an extent, but it should never outshine the fact that competition is good. It should never outshine the fact that other car companies are working on getting rid of gas-powered engines. It should never outshine the fact that the global fight against toxic carbon emissions is slowly but surely turning in our favor.
There is an old saying that goes, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say it at all.” I think many of us should remember this from time to time. If there is a disagreement with someone that occurs online, understand that points of view are rarely going to line up identically. Understand that people are going to think your opinions are ridiculous. Lastly, realize that someone disagreeing with you is an opportunity for you to expand your mind and learn something new. A conversation with someone who holds opposite opinions or points of view is sometimes the healthiest thing for the human spirit. There is a lot of evidence that suggests being around “Yes men/women” is a bad thing. Humans grow on adversity, and there is nothing worse than being around a bunch of people who you have everything in common with. Sometimes, it is helpful to mix it up and hear things that you don’t necessarily agree with.
So next time you catch someone online, and they’re saying something that seems to challenge your beliefs, take a minute and think about what they are saying. Does it make sense, or is their idea full of misleading and incorrect information? In the case of the short conversation I had earlier this week, I recognized that what this person was saying was false based on Elon’s merit and what he has done for the world thus far in his career.
Don’t block or put someone on blast because they said something controversial to you. I would imagine a healthier way to end the conversation is to simply say, “I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.” Calling someone names is childish, and stooping to the level they are taking if they begin calling you names makes you no better than they are. There’s a reason that it is called “taking the high road.”
Tesla’s mission is about sustaining life as we know it on Earth, or perhaps, on Mars. However, if we do not learn to cherish and respect views that differ from our own, our civilization will never make it. Breaking through boundaries and listening to points of view that are not necessarily on par with what we believe is sometimes the best thing for us. Even if you leave a conversation thinking, “That person has no clue what they’re talking about,” there are a series of benefits. You walked away respectfully. You learned that you and that person aren’t compatible. Lastly, you realized that there are people in the world that are the polar opposite to you. Those are just a few that come to mind.
I find it extremely important, especially at such a trying time in our world, that we respect one another as best as we can. Whether you’re a Tesla fan, Rivian fan, or a Lucid fan, be kind to one another. We are all in this together, and the push toward sustainable transportation is growing due to the efforts of each and every one of the companies that decided to manufacture EVs.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
