Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

It won't sound evil. They will just tell the politicians that in order to invest huge sums of money they need guarantees, that the uncertainty of not binding their customers hinders job creation and investment, etc. Nothing is new in that playbook, since from their point of view it's actually not even wrong. It's not like they have to come up with some outrageous lies. Today it's Tesla, but that process has been going on for a long time. It's just too good: Control over a stable income stream instead of the ups and downs of the free market. It also appeals to people working in those firms, so again not actually clearly "evil".

It also appeals to a lot of people in our allegedly "uncertain and dangerous times" that there is ever more "order" and control. They actually have a point: The more complex out systems become, which includes the state, the more dangerous failure and the harder a recovery. Are our systems becoming more unstable? If so the trend explains itself, because that calls for more certainty and control - since changing the system itself seems to be no option because nobody knows how and what to change it to, or at least there is no trace of a consensus. So, more order and control it is.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that is true either. I am probably more politically active than most, in that I will actually contact my representatives about issues I consider important. My representatives have, in some cases, been more tech savvy than most as well. And yet still there is little real change in technical fields, because the overwhelming majority of politicians are not aware of the real issues and implications and the briefings they get come from the very big businesses who stand to gain the most from additional laws and variations on the theme of regulatory capture. If the only people running in an election are all like that, who do you vote for if you want something else?

I see a few plausible ways to improve the situation. Firstly, voting with our wallets works if and when there are better alternatives available, and sadly is often far more flexible, far more effective and far more quickly effective than voting in an election.

Secondly, if we can raise the issues to a high enough level of public awareness that they start to become politically relevant, then the politicians will start caring enough to get better briefings and explore more points of view. The danger with this one is that with technology issues, people often only start to care when something significant and bad happens to them personally or to someone close to them, and it may be far too late to fix the underlying problems by then.

One of the possibilities I find most interesting is that in the current political climate in the West, the established political classes are deeply unpopular, and in some cases rival movements are picking up serious interest even if they're a little bit crazy just because they're not the old guard. This also leaves the door open for much more savvy people to enter politics who might never have considered doing so before, and if even a few people who care deeply about some of these issues manage to get into power within national governments, we could start to see some real change.

And of course, there is always the option that many people will take in real life: ignore the restrictions/laws and get away with it. I don't like this one at all personally, because it means those who work within the system are always losing out to those willing to break the rules, but there's no point denying the reality. For example, what are Tesla really going to do to someone who violates this rule? If they start routinely breaking the cars somehow then they're going to face an existential threat to their brand. If they sue the customer, there's a fair chance that they will lose after their terms are found to violate consumer protection laws in enough jurisdictions to kill their whole strategy.

The sad thing is that the final option is often "good enough" for enough people that we don't build enough momentum to push for the other better ones, so the law-abiding but better-wanting citizens lose out as usual.

Maybe this model is actually bad because it circumvents the first sale doctrine, and we need to make this kind of restriction one illegal (haha, in my dreams).

How do we handle software ownership? If I sell you a piece of software that you now own, you can go and resell copies of that software to whoever you want. What is the best way to handle that?

No, it doesn't, at least not necessarily.

I also bought a Toyota last year. They called on a regular timed schedule that had nothing to do with my actual usage pattern. We got a call to come in for our 5,000 mile service when we'd just completed the 10,000 mile service.

It may be a feature of the higher-end models, but it's definitely not something the 2015/2016 Corollas seem to do.