this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
882 points (99.4% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
2505 readers
228 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have no love for Musk, but I remember this not being as clear cut at the time. Unicef was tweeting at Musk to stir up some drama (I assume) not really expecting him to reply (I think the head Unicef guy later said something to the effect of "its a big deal they even got a reply"). So when he did reply and everyone started going crazy asking for details....they kind of floundered for a bit. When they eventually shared some details, It was basically just more of what Unicef was already doing. Not that's a bad thing, but it was far cry from 'solving' world hunger (at least it was compared to twitters interpretation of was solved meant). Unicef looked a bit silly for claiming that they could 'solve' world hunger and Musk walked away looking like an ass for being dismissive towards charity in general.
This is pretty much entirely factually incorrect.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/04/26/elon-musk-hunger/
Incorrect. CNN noted that it would only take a fraction of Musk's wealth to "solve" world hunger.
Musk then took it to Twitter, which started the Twitter conversation.
Yeah, because Unicef is known for being childish and liking to "stir up drama" on Twitter. It's practically synonymous with their mission, and they have a habit of
You get the idea. I don't think I need to continue point by point.
fair enough.
You kind of split up my comment, but the 'I assume' was for the whole statement. When I first encountered this story, it was very much centered around a twitter thread. But you have point, this did unfairly frame Unicef in my comment.
Thank you for the snoops link. TIL
That said, I dont think the rest of my comment was to far off what people took away from the story at the time. The CNN page has a correction at the bottom for what the headline was at the time. It did say 'solve' (not 'help solve') at the time which would have fed into peoples opinion of Unicefs follow up and really driven the narative (which is unfortunate).
But your post (or wolf840's post?) definitly frames this as there was a defacto solution to end world hunger and Musk bought twitter instead. Which is also not a fair representation of what happend. Even the snoops page you linked says that.