Wearing slogans, pulling banners, smashing cars and making music, why did the auto show turn into a rights protection exhibition?

?Because they couldn’t find a way to attract their attention, they adopted the method of wearing slogans, holding banners, smashing cars and making music, making a big fuss at the brand’s auto show and turning the auto show into their own. rights protection exhibition. Although the method is not quite right, the effect is very good.

?This kind of abandonment disrupted the order of the brand's auto show, and the female car owner who defended her rights was also detained because of such behavior. Therefore, you must also pay attention to your methods when safeguarding your interests. You must not disrupt other people's activities because of some of your actions, which may also bring trouble to yourself.

?The female car owner is a user of the Tesla brand, and this rights protection incident was also something she had to do. Because the Tesla's braking system was a bit out of order, the car had no intention of stopping if I stepped on it. The female car owner responded to Tesla many times in the hope of getting a solution, but Tesla has not given a definite reply, and Tesla believes that this is not because their brake system failed, but because the car owner was driving too fast. The brakes caused by the speed are a bit delayed.

?The female car owner’s method may be wrong, but the results achieved are very significant. Because of the appearance of the female car owner that day, Tesla's stock price evaporated by hundreds of millions, and they also promised that they would solve this problem well.

? Tesla also released their driving data before. The data showed that in the 30 minutes before the accident, the owner stepped on the brakes more than 40 times. However, netizens do not have high recognition of the driving data they released. Because what they publish is not direct driving data, but an EXCEL table, the data in it is very likely not true. They will definitely publish data that is beneficial to them, so their data is not very convincing.

?Although their way of defending rights is not advisable, compared with their previous anger that multi-party communication was ineffective, now that they have attention, their matter can be resolved, which is also a good result. Just hope they don't behave like this next time.