@HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world KKKKKKKKKK

So yes, Eberhard and Tarpenning were there at the beginning. But Tesla’s own historical descriptions have also recognized Musk and others as part of the broader founding team. The disagreement is really about what we mean by “founder,” not about whether Musk was involved in Tesla’s early creation.

I think we’re actually closer on the facts than you realize. I never said Musk founded Tesla by himself or that he was there from day one. My point is that reducing his role to simply “being on paper” is also inaccurate. He joined very early, led the Series A investment, became chairman, and played a major role in shaping the company that Tesla became

Honestly, I’d probably do the same thing 😂🤣😂🤣😂

So the point isn’t to rewrite the timeline. It’s to acknowledge that the word “founderhas been used differently in different historical accounts. The documented facts are more nuanced than either side of this argument suggests

But saying that his role in Tesla’s creation is simply alie is also an oversimplification. Tesla itself has historically described Musk and JB Straubel as part of a broader founding team, and Tesla’s current filings describe Musk as “one of our founders

I’m not ignoring the timeline. In fact, the timeline is exactly why the distinction matters. Musk did not create Tesla from nothing in 2003 Eberhard and Tarpenning were already involved in founding the company. Musk joined in 2004, led the Series A investment, became chairman, and later became CEO

That’s fair, but historical facts and terminology aren’t always as straightforward as you’re making them sound. The important thing is to distinguish between the documented role someone played in a company’s creation and how the term “founder” is used later. That’s why I think the context matters rather than treating the term as having only one possible interpretation

I think we’re discussing two different things here: the historical facts and how the term “cofounder” is used in different contexts. My point wasn’t to erase or rewrite the contributions of the original founders. It was simply that terminology can sometimes be used more broadly depending on the context. If you disagree, that’s completely fine the historical record is what matters

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Exactly, and that’s part of my point. Words can develop broader meanings over time, especially when they’re used in historical or public contexts. That’s why I think it’s useful to look at the context in which “founder” is being used rather than assuming there’s only one possible interpretation

I understand that you see it that way, but calling it a lie doesn’t really address the historical distinction I’m pointing out. I’m not arguing that Musk was there when Tesla was legally incorporated. I’m saying that there is a broader historical discussion about the people involved in Tesla’s early development. That’s the point I’m trying to clarify.