Marcus H.

The editor, Fred, and his minions definitely have a relationship with Tesla (and fanboys) and do not like being corrected regarding the EV industry even if demonstrably true. Even though they purport to report other developments of other EV makes they consistently fail to mention some very important industry developments from those sources even though slavishly inflate details of those in favor. Namely Tesla.

I'm a proponent of EV adoption and follow the field closely but, if one offers contrary facts to the Electrek party line in the commentary section comparing other EVs with Tesla or other related subjects, especially regarding GM, they can/will ban you. It doesn't matter if the facts are correct and cited.

The banning technique is quite disingenuous and includes their comment platform provider Disqus (sadly). If a person is banned they may only notice that their comments no longer garner feedback. Because, the comments will be 'mirrored' back to the commentator as if they were posted but, won't show up for any other reader. And the thread will be purged when it closes to additional comments. However, in this way they don't reveal their bias directly to anyone else when banning posters of contrary information and keep the comment sections 'sanctified' for the fan boys who can be quite rude, and be quite safe being so...

So Tesla gets hammered over Q1 2019 results. I ask serious questions to the community and some of my serious observations about the figures put out by Tesla. No arguing the figures. But don't question if they are very negative to Tesla as those posts wont last long, if they get posted at all. So the Commentary community isn't real. It's moderated to keep a certain perspective that won't question the implications of objective information. Sign of the times.

But why does InsideEvs squelch discussion? They always are reinforcing the Tesla narrative beyond where Elon will even go. Are they a privileged mouthpiece? If so, are the commentaries by InsideEV writers transactional?

CleanTechnica is a site for 'articles' that are approved and sponsored by corporations. There isn't anything wrong with that except that readers aren't going to understand what they're up against if they haven't researched the site and will believe that the 'comment' section is for free wheeling diverse opinions. They are NOT! If you question information about the corporations that support the content you will suddenly find yourself being attacked in crude ways if you go too far for their comfort! They apparently feel this threatens their revenue!

If the site isn't comfortable with your ideas they'll play tag team! For instance, the editor will be tagged as a 'top commentator', not as editor, owner or employee, and join in for a set up question. They'll claim your opinions are non factual but neither are theirs! The moderators enforce this. Business logic isn't good enough for them if it doesn't conform to the preferred outlook. The pattern is set up question followed by beat down of any contrary outlook.

The site is open about their business model IF you go to the pages where they appeal to advertisers and explain how to 'sponsor' articles. Most readers aren't familiar with this model they aren't likely to understand that CleanTechnica's articles are specifically for making money from sponsors! It was only after very strong armed attacks in the commentary section that I got suspicious and looked at the site more thoroughly.