• Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t mistake intent for ability. Elon doesn’t feel cost or expense, he’s that rich. So while we can all laugh at the money it takes to wreck the communication platform called twitter, a person so rich could be doing exactly what they want; silencing and platforming anyone they choose, while swaths of people can be silenced or deplatformed for Saudi investors all while Elon muddies the waters of “free speech”. The cost is what we laugh about but consider the actions of someone who could dump that money for their own political ends and at the end of the day their feet still haven’t touched the ground.

      It’s not a surprise if he were to eyeball Wikipedia and the thought should be a terrifying.

  • Resol van Lemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nonprofit organizations that moderate a website should stay nonprofit, because at least they’re not prone to making crappy business decisions that’ll end up hurting them in the long term.

  • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah. So this os the end goal - obtain very popular and influential things on the internet - in this case communication and knowledge/facts, and destroy them in such a way that only technofascists like himself can even find them remotely useful.

    It’s the ultimate way to fuck up any democratic society and plunge the world further into chaos. What a dumpster fire.

  • Ersatz86@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Alternate headline:

    “Massive shitcunt threatens to destroy the actual best part of the internet to the surprise of absolutely no one”

    is what they meant to say

    Incidentally, do you guys remember when this fuckhead was a darling of the left?

    These are strange times.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      He was a darling because he was a literally unknown person who introduced themselves with a controlled media profile who sold a way to approach the fossil fuel problem. The nice thing about the left is their views evolve rapidly to current events and Elon has been inescapable in media, so naturally he reveals his true neocon form.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The nice thing about the left is that they have some critical thinking abilities.

        Made it more broad and concise for you.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Incidentally, do you guys remember when this fuckhead was a darling of the left?

      And when was this? I cannot remember a time when a celebrity capitalist parasite was a “darling of the left.”

      • londos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I will admit there was a time when he was pushing electric cars while traditional auto manufacturers seemed to be dragging their feet. It felt like he was on the right side of a big issue and shaking things up. I think it’s important to admit when we get it wrong. And boy did I get it wrong.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It felt like he was on the right side of a big issue

          No. No, he never was. Any leftist will tell you that the only solution to the car problem is public transport… not silly attempts to make individual cars more “eco-friendly.” That’s not leftism - that’s what we call “green capitalism.” And leftists have understood that loooong before Phony Stark skipped South Africa to avoid being drafted into the SADF to uphold the white supremacist state he benefited so richly from.

          • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re pushing a very niche view as if it’s universal, I get why you’re doing it but you’re wrong to. There is no single solution to transport requirements and while the vast majority of leftists of course agree public transport is vital it’s not a magic solution for everything and outside the car hate bubble is very rare for anyone, even a leftwing person, to be staunchly anticar.

            You might not like it but it’s reality.

          • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you think you could be a little more careful in your angry smearing of conscientious objectors please?

            My brother dodged the draft. He’s a theologian who spent years in exile due to his refusal to serve the corrupt apartheid government.

            Give a fuck about Edolf Twitler or don’t but leave the rest of us out of this. Cunt is your problem now anyway.

            Just, mind the facts while you rant if you don’t mind. Please.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you think you could be a little more careful in your angry smearing of conscientious objectors please?

              Perhaps you need to stop smearing conscientious objectors by pretending Phony Stark was one - you might just as well pretend Donald Trump was a conscientious objector if you apply that label to Musk.

              It’s out in the open now - Musk is as much a white supremacist as any National Party goon. And, like a lot of rich white kids whose families got rich off the opportunities and impoverished black labor the Apartheid-regime provided them with, Musk felt himself too entitled to actually do the dirty work himself. It was common knowledge here in South Africa at the time - the rich white kids from rich families got to opt out of the war, despite the fact thet they benefited the most from the Apartheid-regime.

              It is true that some of those rich white kids actually were against the Apartheid-regime… but Musk wasn’t one of them. His blatant support for white supremacism and his enabling of right-wing ideology proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

              • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Exactly. If the reason you are “conscientiously objecting” is because you’re a rich Nazi shitheel who is too much of a pussy to fight for anything yourself, no one cares because you obviously don’t have a real conscience to be conscientous with.

                He is clearly fine with sending others to fight his battles for him. Can he be any more the Gen X version of Trump?

  • waitmarks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Someone should tell Elon that an unprofitable website and a non-profit website are not the same thing.

  • sirdorius@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course the community driven, anarchic nature of Wikipedia is a threat to the status quo of capitalists dominating society. Musk can’t stand this, because it shows how ultra wealthy, incompetent dicktators like him are unnecessary.

    • steltek@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wikipedia is anything but anarchy. There’s so much bureaucracy it would surprise even Kafka.

      I also don’t think Elon’s psyche is built around an abstract notion of economic systems. He’s simply a narcissist that desires shiny things, in a very basic and unrefined way. Rich people just want to add baubles to their menagerie.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wikipedia is by its own standards a propaganda organ for the status quo (a mainstream encyclopedia that summarizes mainstream science, history and journalism).

    • SchizoDenji@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Community driven? Wikipedia? That shit has mods worse than reddit admins.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I completely hate how something that is a rare Bastian of maintaining free and reliable factual information for the world is just a silly game for him. It sickens me. This is the kind of cartoon character rich villain that throws money a people and shouts at them to dance for him.

    • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      reliable

      Wikipedia

      It’s literally a meme how you can’t trust anything you see on there except for the most objective, undeniable facts, because you never know what page has been camped by an editor with an agenda or just a possessive streak. On anything even slightly subjective. I know there’s good editors, I know it’s a majority of them, but the problem is that the bad ones exist and so you can’t trust any given page isn’t poisoned.

      Also, relatedly, the entire backend is an ever-growing morass of petty politics and tangled policies that serve mostly as a barrier to entry. They’ve been saying admin and power-editor retention is a huge problem for well over a decade, and yet they keep making it worse. At this point, the majority of their admins are from 2005, with only 10% from after 2010, because nobody bothers getting started when the prerequisites to making even a small edit can be learning the wikipedia legal system.

      • skulblaka@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for subjective content. Just because you keep getting your opinion edits rolled back does not mean that that’s a bad thing. A Wikipedia page SHOULD be filled only with objective facts. Again, it is an encyclopedia.

        Also, you can trust that a given page is not poisoned by checking the sources yourself. They’re all right there at the bottom. Anything without a citation can be ignored but most things of substance are going to have a citation, because an encyclopedia is a place in which to collect objective facts with sources to back them up.

        • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I didn’t say subjective content, I said content about something subjective. Wikipedia contains a wealth of “one proposed explanation for”, or “a common theory is” on any event or phenomenon, (of which many are covered). Objective reports of subjective statements. And the choice of which to use, which perspectives to include, is a form of bias. The reporting of which proposed theories for causes of historical events or meanings for literature are included, and which are left out, is a form of bias. One that cannot be seen through simply by “checking the sources”. An article written with a slant is going to include sources that agree with its viewpoint and not include sources that do not, and checking the sources is going to show you those viewpoints, and not the ones that were left out.

          Also, again, there are absolutely editors who will just wordlessly revert objective, factual edits, with clear, proper citations from accepted primary sources, just because it’s their page or it doesn’t line up with how they want it to be seen. Checking the sources won’t show you that, either.

          • skulblaka@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Alright, you do actually make fair points here that I hadn’t taken into consideration. I still stand by my statement but now I see that you aren’t really necessarily disagreeing with me. Guess I’m going to have to start checking the edit history as well as the sources now…

  • PlexSheep@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just a heads up, you can download all of wikipedias Text in a couple Gigabyte iirc. So we could easily “fork” and mirror it.