News
Opinion: Tesla FSD Beta critics’ pearl-clutching and outrage are getting ridiculous
Tesla’s “Request Full Self-Driving Beta” button is here, and so is the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). Over the weekend, Tesla owners with qualified vehicles and who purchased the company’s Full Self-Drivings suite were able to press a button that would allow them to apply for a slot in the company’s soon-to-be-expanded FSD Beta program. The company also launched its Safety Score system as a way to help determine which of its customers are safe drivers.
True to form, it did not take long before Tesla critics pounced on the “Request FSD Beta” button and the company’s “Safety Score” system. Pretty soon, even a US Senator joined the fray in condemning the FSD Beta program. While this is not a surprise and almost expected considering Tesla’s history, it must be said that this time, the pearl-clutching and outrage from the company’s critics are getting quite ridiculous.
Tesla’s Strategy
To get proper context on the FSD Beta expansion, one must know how Tesla started the program in the first place. The FSD Beta program was launched in October 2020, and for nearly a year, it was limited to just about 2,000 drivers. These drivers have accumulated valuable real-world data over the past 11 months, and none were involved in an accident. This effectively did two things: one; it proved that the FSD Beta program is feasible, and two; it set a very high bar for the rest of the FSD Beta rollout.
Expanding the FSD Beta program requires tons of caution. Thus, it was no surprise that the company launched a Safety Rating system designed to evaluate the driving behavior of Tesla owners. This effectively gave the company a rather objective way to evaluate which drivers could participate in the FSD Beta program expansion. It should also be noted that owners who qualify for the program would not be using a consumer release version of the Full Self-Driving suite. They would simply be part of the FSD Beta test program.
Clutching Pearls
This fact seems to have escaped some of the media coverage about the FSD Beta program expansion. Bloomberg, for one, ran with a headline that read “Tesla Starts Judging Owners It Charged $10,000 for Self-Driving.” This premise is quite incorrect as the $10,000 Full Self Driving suite being sold by Tesla is a consumer release product, not the advanced driver-assist system that would be used by owners who qualify for the FSD Beta program. Despite this, sentiments opposing the program, as well as the Safety Score system, have been quite evident among the company’s critics.
Such a misinformed take was evident in a Twitter post shared by US Senator Richard Blumenthal, who noted that Tesla was “putting untrained drivers on public roads as testers for their misleadingly-named, unproven system.” The Senator added that the FSD Beta strategy is a “seeming recipe for disaster” as the company is playing “Russian Roulette for unsuspecting drivers & the public.” Interestingly enough, the politician also cited a tweet from CNBC, which included an article that is, in many ways, slanted against the EV maker.
Outdated Information
Wrong takes on hot topics are typically due to outdated information, and in the case of US Senator Blumenthal, this might be the case. Back in 2018, the politician rode in a Model 3 with Consumer Reports Head of Auto Testing Jake Fisher, who was operating a version of Tesla’s Autopilot that is now incredibly outdated. During the drive, Fisher was quick to point out what capabilities Autopilot was lacking, all while operating the system without his hands on the wheel.
Consumer Reports is hardly a Tesla authority considering that the magazine, which prides itself on consumer advocacy, quite literally featured a thorough walkthrough on how to abuse Tesla’s Autopilot system back in April using defeat devices and a variety of tricks. If Blumenthal is basing his take on Tesla on CNBC‘s recent reporting — which was slanted negatively against the EV maker — and his past experiences with Consumer Reports — which operates Autopilot irresponsibly — then it is no wonder that he is skeptical about the FSD Beta test expansion.
The Irony of it All
The most ironic thing about the pearl-clutching and outrage among Tesla critics today is the fact that the “Request FSD Beta” button essentially does nothing for now. It does not make owners who press the button automatic FSD Beta testers. They’d have to have great Safety Scores for that. And due to the presence of Safety Scores, Tesla owners who wish to participate in the FSD Beta program are now driving safer than ever before. The company effectively incentivized safe driving this weekend, and somehow, it was still met with a ton of negativity.
-
Also ironic is the fact that statistics are on Tesla’s side. Take the well-publicized NHTSA investigation on Autopilot crashing into stationary emergency vehicles, for example. When the probe was launched, the news was extensively covered with headlines like CNN‘s “Tesla is under investigation because its cars can’t stop hitting emergency vehicles.” But while such headlines are compelling, the fact is that the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report notes that there are about 8,000 stationary emergency vehicle crash injuries per year. Tesla had nine crash injuries with stationary first responder vehicles in the last 12 months, and some of those involved drivers who were not paying attention to the road.
The NHTSA notes that there are about 2,740,000 crash injuries in the United States per year, and there’s hardly any outrage for the human lives included in this grim statistic. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system, which generally drives very conservatively, could effectively reduce this number by a notable margin. It is then quite disappointing to see the narrative being formed around the expansion of the FSD Beta program, especially considering that the advanced driver-assist system would only be released for owners who generally drive safely.
Valid Tesla Criticism
Interestingly enough, there are actual valid angles of criticism for Tesla’s FSD Beta rollout. The program for now is vastly focused on the United States, but the company sells the FSD suite to owners worldwide. It would then be beneficial to Tesla owners if the program’s expansion is expedited to areas such as Canada and Europe, to name a few. FSD, after all, is intended to be a universal system that should be capable of operating anywhere. Following this logic, FSD Beta must be tested on a wider set of areas as well — as soon as possible.
There are also Tesla owners who purchased the Full Self-Driving suite years ago on vehicles that are still equipped with MCU1 units. Some of these vehicles are already coming out of warranty, and their owners are yet to enjoy any FSD features since most of the advanced driver-assist system’s functions today require an MCU2 unit. Considering that Tesla owners were promised that their cars would be equipped with the hardware necessary for Full Self-Driving with an FSD suite purchase, it would only be right for Tesla to expedite MCU1 to MCU2 retrofits for owners with vehicles that were produced from March 2018 or earlier.
But misrepresenting the FSD Beta program expansion and criticizing the Safety Score system, that’s a far harder sell.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
-
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) reported a beat in revenues and EBITDA in its first earnings call report while also minimizing losses as its business continues to gain momentum.
After its IPO in July, SpaceX saw some tough losses on Wall Street due to a major selloff after a delay in its 13th Starship test flight. The ship launched later that week and completed what was arguably the most successful IFT operation in the Starship program’s history.
Nevertheless, the company is continuing on and reported some encouraging financials while also promoting what appears to be a robust outlook moving forward in its Space, AI, and Connectivity divisions.
SpaceX to report first-ever earnings today: here’s what to expect
Earnings Results
- Revenues: $7.8 billion reported vs. $6.7 billion expected
- Adjusted EBITDA: $3.5 billion vs. $2 billion expected
- Net loss of $541 million, an improvement of $467 million from net loss of $1.0 billion
Additionally, CFO Bret Johnsen had these comments:
“2026 has been a momentous year so far, and the second quarter demonstrated the true power of SpaceX. Revenue growth accelerated across all our business segments and we delivered strong operating leverage, with significant margin expansion led by our new AI compute agreements. Our unparalleled leadership in launch, Starlink subscriber growth, new enterprise and government partnerships, and best-in-class AI infrastructure underscore our ability to drive meaningful scale and deliver attractive returns. As a newly public company, we are delighted to welcome our broad base of shareholders and bondholders. We ended the second quarter with $100 billion of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, and $47.5 billion in backlog. This financial strength gives us substantial capacity to invest in Starship, Starlink Broadband and Mobile satellites, and our AI platform, while maintaining a disciplined long-term capital allocation framework.”
Space Business Highlights
SpaceX shared some of its biggest Space Business Highlights for Q2:
- Space revenues grew 55% sequentially and 29% year-over-year to $962 million, driven by a higher number of large customer launches and a favorable customer shift compared to the prior year
- Total costs and expenses for the Space segment were up by $389 million year-over-year, as we continued to accelerate R&D investments in our Starship program, which we believe will reduce the cost to orbit by 99% or more relative to the historical average, and unlock significant revenue potential across all business segments
- Leading launch provider for the world with 78 launches and 1,041 metric tons of mass to orbit deployed over the six months ended June 30, 2026, primarily allocated to Connectivity for the deployment of our Starlink constellation
- Starship V3 development continued to advance towards full and rapid reusability:
- Completed Starship V3’s first suborbital mission in May, Flight 12, which achieved a successful lift off from our new Starbase pad, a precision landing of Starship’s upper stage, and deployment of modified V2 Starlink satellites
- Subsequent to the second quarter, completed Starship Flight 13 in July, which achieved all flight objectives including deploying 20 production V3 satellites, demonstrating in-space relight of a Raptor engine, and executing the softest ever splashdown of Starship, providing critical views of an intact heatshield
SpaceX will report its earnings today at 4:30 P.M. EDT.
Elon Musk issued a second pointed warning to SpaceX short sellers on Tuesday, just hours before the company was set to release its first quarterly earnings as a publicly traded firm. Responding to a report highlighting elevated short interest, Musk wrote on X: “I try to warn them, but they just double down …”
The comment came as data from S3 Partners showed roughly 95 percent of available SPCX shares to borrow were on loan, translating to about 34 percent short interest as a percentage of the float. The stock has traded under pressure since its record-breaking IPO in June 2026, declining significantly from early peaks.
I try to warn them, but they just double down … 🤷♂️
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 4, 2026
This marks the second such message from Musk in under three weeks.
On July 17, amid post-IPO volatility, he stated: “The survival probability of firms who maintain a significant short position in SpaceX over time is very low.” At that time, SPCX had fallen roughly 30 percent from its peak above a $2.6 trillion valuation, with short sellers reportedly realizing gains of about $8.7 billion.
Musk’s warning aligned with optimistic analyses projecting that Starship-driven cost reductions could enable a multi-trillion-dollar space economy through applications such as orbital solar power, asteroid mining, data centers, and Mars-related projects, positioning SpaceX as critical infrastructure.
SpaceX is scheduled to report second-quarter results after the market close later today, followed by a webcast. Analysts anticipate revenue near $6.9 billion, reflecting growth in Starlink, launch services, and AI-related segments. The earnings release precedes a major lockup expiration on August 6 that could free hundreds of millions of insider shares.
Musk has a long track record of confronting short sellers, particularly regarding Tesla, where he has argued that persistent bearish positions underestimate transformative technologies. Critics view his optimism as overly ambitious given near-term stock fluctuations, while supporters see temporary dips as opportunities in a longer-term expansion of the space economy.
As SpaceX opens its books to public scrutiny for the first time, the high short interest and Musk’s repeated cautions set the stage for heightened market attention on the results and management’s commentary.
Tesla’s AI lead Ashok Elluswamy doubled down on the company’s strategy regarding Full Self-Driving’s speed settings, and owners are definitely confused.
Earlier versions of Full Self-Driving allowed owners to set a max speed that the vehicle could travel while operating under the semi-autonomous driver assistance platform. This allowed more customization for the driver, giving them the ability to experience FSD’s robust performance with their own personal preferences.
Speed is massively important for obvious reasons — it’s not only a question of keeping the vehicle occupants comfortable by traveling at a safe speed, but it’s also something that could contribute to a ticket or infraction from law enforcement.
With the release of FSD v14 last year, Tesla removed the ability to set a max speed and instead opted for five Speed Profiles, ranging from “Sloth,” the most conservative, to “Mad Max,” the most aggressive and spirited. These profiles not only control speed, but also how frequently the vehicle will execute passes, perform lane changes, and other contributing factors.
The removal of the Max Speed setting was a major complaint amongst the Tesla community because it left owners scrambling for a way to experience suitable behaviors while traveling at an appropriate speed. Most felt the driving profiles would be a good indicator of the behaviors, while speed would still be left up to the discretion of the driver.
Instead, Tesla’s Speed Profiles determine both, and the constant tinkering of how they behave has been a major bottleneck and point of confusion for both owners and the company. From update to update, the Speed Profiles will change, sometimes more drastically than others. Some owners have complained that the “Standard” profile is too fast, while others have experienced “Mad Max” traveling below the speed limit:
What has happened to Mad Max?
At one point it was going 32 in a 35. Traffic ahead had pulled away considerably https://t.co/bjKvaMVTNX pic.twitter.com/aaZSWmLu5v
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 24, 2026
These things change with each update, but the big complaint is that owners are on the hook for any tickets that come from FSD’s infractions; that’s the caveat of the suite being named FSD (Supervised). It ultimately means the driver is responsible, and the automaker has no liability when it comes to speeding tickets or general traffic infractions.
It is the driver’s responsibility to take over or adjust based on this.
Elluswamy essentially confirmed that there are no plans to bring back Max Speed control, because it is what he referred to as “an anti pattern.” He then echoed something that CEO Elon Musk has started to really push with FSD, and that’s the idea that Tesla is really honing in on the preferences of the driver.
Max speed control is an anti pattern.
We are working on better learning of user’s implied preferences.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) August 3, 2026
Owners were confused by Tesla’s decision, stating that there must be a better way, especially considering disengagements for incorrect speeds are common:
This…. is not the way
— Kyle Conner (@itskyleconner) August 4, 2026
😭 I appreciate this mentality ! But currently the no.1 reason I disengage in Australia is incorrect speed zones.
— Ryan’s Model Y (@ryanjaycowan) August 3, 2026
This is fine but you need to start accepting liability for speeding tickets then. https://t.co/lyCgdA83gQ
— Jeremy Judkins (@jeremyjudkins_) August 4, 2026
Okay https://t.co/nOvoXQkNg1 pic.twitter.com/jGRtF2xtox
— Chad Moran (@ChadMoran) August 3, 2026
From personal experience and using FSD for over 72 percent of my driving miles since v14 was released late last year, I make Speed Profile adjustments constantly. If FSD is traveling a tad too quickly, I will scale it back, and if it’s too conservative, I’ll make it more aggressive.
I don’t complain about making the Speed Profile changes too frequently, but it would certainly be nice to have it happen less frequently. There are far too many times I am concerned about getting a ticket, even in Standard mode.
The biggest issue for me, personally, which seems to be echoed throughout the community, is the fact that Tesla’s goal is to minimize disengagements. Many drivers are stating that speed is a major reason for disengagements.
However, Tesla is not willing to bring back this one level of input because it would technically be a regression.
Whether it’s right or wrong in your opinion, it is what Tesla is going with, and it seems like it has pivoted quite a bit from its other strategies for minimizing interventions by pushing its AI to behave in a way that would fit the occupant’s personal preferences.
SpaceX reports beat in first earnings while minimizing losses
Elon Musk sends second warning to SpaceX shorts ahead of first earnings
