35
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
35 points (88.9% liked)
Fedia Discussions
1 readers
3 users here now
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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
If they become broadly accepted beyond one person's interpretation...sure. But, no one else in the business world accepts this re-definition. It would invalidate all the legitimate examples of being the actual "founder" of a company.
That term comes with a higher level of significance. Applying it to anyone who comes onboard later, or to a new owner of a preexisting brand, would dilute the significance of the foundational contribution the original owners made to that brand.
But, this is obviously why Elon Musk is trying to commandeer that title for himself. He is attempting to apply a greater level of significance to his role in the company. Which is laughable, considering he's already made a sizable contribution to its success. Calling himself a "co-founder" on top of that, is just a transparently presumptuous lie. Anyone who looks into the history of the company will know that it isn't true...unless they re-define what it means to be a "founder".
And that is just as ridiculous as making the claim in the first place. You guys are embarrassingly gullible for just going along with his bullshit, like it doesn't stink.
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
Except that in this case, the historical facts determine which terminology is used. That IS the context. The historical record contradicts your use of the terms.
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
Except that you're ignoring the fact that the "documented role" Elon Musk has played...is a lie. The timeline can't be changed, no matter how many pamphlets they print, saying he was there from the start. He wasn't. A fact that's also "documented".
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
So...you agree that he wasn't involved in founding the company. He just likes to say he was, "on paper".
They aren't even "reinventing" what the term "founder" means...they're just calling him one, even though he didn't actually "found" the company.
This isn't hard to understand. These mental gymnastics you keep going through in order to avoid the truth, is really weird to watch. It's like out-of-control copium.