If only someone would make them not exist.

Elon’s a pretty public guy, right?

You can if you change the definition of libel (or terrorism) to be ‘anything that negatively affects an ultra rich person’. Which is what is happening before our very eyes.

You can. You can sue for any reason that you can dream up. True, a lot of those suits would get thrown out on a motion for summary judgement, but a libel suit would likely pass the test of a prima facie valid case, and the case would proceed. Now, if the facts don’t support it, then you’d lose, but if you have a lot more money than the defendant, you can use procedure to bury them financially.

It’s one of the major flaws in the U.S. legal system, and anti-SLAPP laws are far too weak, since they usually rely on the defendant to try to enforce them.

Look at what happened with ABC News, recently.

Right on. Consider also contributing to an article. Volunteers work tirelessly to filter the misinformation pushed by stakeholders like Elon Musk and the army he can afford to employ to fuck up articles full-time.

Thanks for donating! I give annually too. But we’re going to have to step up our contributions, both financially and in terms of information, if we want to keep Wikipedia a resource for free information and not free propaganda. Megacorps like EM’s and their lobbyists are always fucking up articles, trying to outpace the volunteers who vet the information.

Just look at the Consumer Brands Association or the National Restaurant Association (the lobbying groups who are responsible for suppressing ultra-processed food regulation and fair wage legislation). Among their claims on the Wikipedia pages are that Michelle Obama “asked for their help” for her healthy eating campaign and that they exist to encourage responsible food selection by consumers— referring to sources that are actually about MO issuing a warning to them to improve food labels or else.

Another example is the Scientology page which has been locked due to the relentless efforts of Scientologists constantly trying to edit it with misinformation. Maintaining the integrity of the platform is really a tireless service that volunteers of Wikipedia Foundation provide.

For those who may not be able to donate or want to take additional steps to protect the freedom of shared information, consider contributing to an article you’re passionate about. Platforms like Udemy and Coursera offer free courses on how to research and verify information effectively. While I’ve always been a strong advocate for public libraries, it’s clear that Wikipedia is the essential resource when it comes to current and accessible knowledge.

Same

I’m not, only because I’ve never once been in awe of any damn thing that piece of shit has ever done stolen credit for, and don’t intend to start now.

It’s a super power. No ordinary person could do it this much.

This too is greed. Wikipedia is too accurate, and he doesn’t want the truth to be remembered.

Now they’re openly admiting that they’re against everything that makes the live better for everyone?

always have been

A better life is a “woke” idea.

It’s hard, however, to deal with people acting as individuals who just happen to be paid by Apartheid Manchild to write or edit articles slanted to his fucked-up worldview.

Won’t somebody rid us of this meddlesome billionaire?

Nah, too basic and low-tech. He deserves nothing less than a drone strike

Gonna need Mario for that

You know, I do usually, but now I’m going to go monthly.

I donated once this month already but I’ll fucking do it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

I just read that list. How many conservative sources are listed as “Reliable Sources” I see Reason, but I’m not sure I’d consider them conservative.