https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/elon-musk-wikipedia-twitter-x-encyclopedia-1234861220/
Behind the X owner’s trolling is a years long obsession with the internet’s favorite encyclopedia, says Depths of Wiki creator Annie Rauwerda.
I don’t think anyone has ever made a submarine out of toilet paper tubes, masking tape and blu-tack. This is the peak of innovation.
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.
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.
The nice thing about the left is that they have some critical thinking abilities.
Made it more broad and concise for you.
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."
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.
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.
I wasn’t at that level of analysis at the time yet.
Me neither. They really did a number on us.
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.
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.
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?
Wait, is this a bad thing?
No, it's a Musk thing - he claims him skipping out on doing his bit for the Apartheid-regime (the true reason for his family's riches) was based on his (alleged) "stance" against the Apartheid-regime - but his overt white supremacism and his enabling of far-right ideologies kind of disproves all of that, doesn't it?
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.
You’re pushing a very niche view as if it’s universal,
Oh, it used to be far, far more universal than it is now. They spent a lot of propaganda money to make it less universal.
Considering how the rivets seem to be popping off the western propaganda model recently, I'm willing to bet that it might one day be a lot more universal once more.
You might not like that, but that's reality.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I don't mean to be rude but you're confused and delusional, there isn't a transport authority in the world that thinks we can totally do without cars - I'm all for idealism but it should be at least grounded in some form of reality.
Riiiight... I'm confused and delusional because you want to live in a world where Big Auto's profit margins are prioritized over the needs of the public.
Phony Stark might have a little blue check mark to sell you - he likes the way you think.
When he was spending money on electric cars, solar, renewable energy storage and (relatively) low-cost space travel.
Yanno, before he got addicted to Twitter and became terminally online.
It honestly baffles me how many people have forgotten that Musk was heralded as basically being irl Batman because electric cars prior to Tesla were actual trash, there was little to no research being done on how to make space cheaper, and renewables only worked as long as the sun was shining and the wind was blowing (iirc the power wall was originally developed for renewable energy storage; Tesla also developed solar roof tiles so you could turn your roof into one big solar panel). He was using his money to actually help develop cleaner transportation, cleaner energy development and space travel instead of filling Olympic swimming pools with cash like most rich fucks.
Then he started posting on Twitter and everyone realized he was an idiot with too much money who got lucky with Tesla and SpaceX.
(Yes, I know he wasn't the founder of Tesla; however it was his money and idiocy-induced stubbornness that made the company successful)
Tesla "developed" those solar tiles as a fucking scam to sell investors on the Solarcity merger to bail his family out. It only ever came to fruition to keep him out of prison for outright fraud rather than just "fibbing". He bet the wellbeing of every employee and shareholder on that absolute dumpster fire of a company, literally scamming investors, just to save his ass, and it was nothing short of dumb fucking luck that kept it all burning to the ground, as he himself stated in a deposition.
Like everything else Musk does, those solar tiles are a way for wealthy people to greenwash their decadent lifestyle, while also allowing them to stay NIMBYs who don't want to ruin the look of their gaudy McMansions. Normal arrays cost fractions of what those tiles do, work better, and don't require replacing your entire roof for them.
Powerwalls were just a way to get rid of out of spec cells to people at 10x what their value is in an automotive pack. A home ESS is much gentler on them comparatively, so even out of spec cells work fine.
You want to talk about clean transportation? He came up with the literal pipe dream of the Hyperloop to keep cities from funding actual high-speed and light rail projects, so people would have to buy his shitboxes.
Literally everything he does is to keep his game as a greasy car salesman/government welfare queen going (see, SpaceX), and nothing more. Any positive benefits conferred from this are basically just a coincidence.
When he was spending money on electric cars, solar, renewable energy storage and (relatively) low-cost space travel.
You mean... all those things that came from public institutions (ie, universities) and not parasites like Phony Stark?
It honestly baffles me how many people have forgotten that Musk was heralded as basically being irl Batman
Yes... by a media completely given over to licking the boots of the wealthy. Soooo... no leftists involved at all.
You mean... all those things that came from public institutions (ie, universities) and not parasites like Phony Stark?
And how many of those people actually spent time implementing these improvements? Iirc, no one. Because the infrastructure wasn't there for electric cars and developing the infrastructure was going to be expensive, making electric cars basically useless for anything except short drives.
...which is where public transportation should be used.
But public transportation doesn't work in every situation, especially in a country where everything has been designed around cars, making public transportation retrofits obscenely expensive. Musk said, "I have a fuck ton of money, and that money is worthless if I'm not using it, so let's build the infrastructure to make electric cars worth it".
And so he did.
Yes... by a media completely given over to licking the boots of the wealthy. Soooo... no leftists involved at all.
You know politics are a spectrum, right? There were a lot of people on the left who weren't associated with the MSM who thought he was the hottest thing since sliced bread. I knew a lot of people ranging from moderate liberal to hardcore left who liked him. The reason why the hardcore lefties liked him was because they saw him as a necessary evil.
The general opinion among the more hard leaning left was that the world is burning and something has to be done, if a rich person is taking steps in the right direction, then we'll back him until he stops being useful. We don't have the luxury to wait for the revolution or sit with our thumbs up our asses hoping oil and gas companies will just suddenly keel over and die. We need to do more to save our world and anything is better than nothing.
The only people who couldn't see that he was useful were idiots waiting for a perfect idol and were willing to sacrifice everyone for their personal, sky-high standards.
Edit: fixed a bit where I had inserted a sentence and forgot to actually connect it to something.
And how many of those people actually spent time implementing these improvements?
Probably not much... and probably because people at universities are smart enough to understand that electric cars doesn't fix any problems at all.
in a country where everything has been designed around cars
When you're in a hole it's best to stop digging. Continuing to rely on cars because fixing the mess that was caused for the benefit of capitalist parasites is "too expensive" is pure madness.
There were a lot of people on the left who weren’t associated with the MSM
Lol! Such as whom? I think you have a very weird idea of what "left" actually is.
The reason why the hardcore lefties liked him was because they saw him as a necessary evil.
Really? Leftists just up and forgot how capitalism worked because... why, again?
then we’ll back him until he stops being useful.
Leftists understand that capitalism will never fix the problems capitalism has caused. Period. None of this is new - this has been general knowledge amongst leftists for more than a hundred years now.
Probably not much... and probably because people at universities are smart enough to understand that electric cars doesn't fix any problems at all.
No, people at universities typically understand that a better solution would be to use public transportation, however they also understand that doing so is a pipe dream and you have to fight against trillions of dollars to do so. Otherwise they wouldn't spend the time and effort to try and develop the technology in the first place. Seriously, what is the point of developing an electric car if you believe cars shouldn't exist? In that situation you're developing a technological dead-end.
In the meantime, our world is still burning and cars are shitting out more greenhouses gases.
When you're in a hole it's best to stop digging. Continuing to rely on cars because fixing the mess that was caused for the benefit of capitalist parasites is "too expensive" is pure madness.
Yes, because tearing up millions of square miles of suburban housing while displacing millions of people to compress it into a smaller space so that public transportation becomes feasible is definitely a realitic solution. New developments should be higher density and should have public transportation systems, however existing areas are kinda fucked from that standpoint.
Lol! Such as whom? I think you have a very weird idea of what "left" actually is. Really? Leftists just up and forgot how capitalism worked because... why, again? Leftists understand that capitalism will never fix the problems capitalism has caused. Period. None of this is new - this has been general knowledge amongst leftists for more than a hundred years now.
The ones who were realistic did. You know people can believe something is bad, yet still engage in it or use it because the alternative isn't feasible, right? How many people still use plastic containers? How many people still drive cars? How many people still use social media? How many people still consume food with high-fructose corn syrup? How many people still call the cops in an emergency? How many people still use Amazon and/or Google? There are so many things that are bad for us, yet we still do them anyway, either because there's no alternative or because we lack the time, money and/or energy to cut them out of our lives.
Ideals are great, but they aren't grounded in reality and compromises have to be made. If you can't understand this, then you're dead weight for the people who are actually trying to make a difference.
I know you're trying to get a rise out of me, but c'mon, you can do better.
Seriously, what is the point of developing an electric car if you believe cars shouldn’t exist?
Well hallelujah, friends... the right-wingers have finally found a pretext that none of us can beat - they messed things up so badly that none of it can be fixed, and nobody should even try. I don't know why they just don't go public with that - they already have one believer right here.
Seriously, what is the point of developing an electric car if you believe cars shouldn’t exist?
You do understand that there are more uses for batteries than cars, right?
How many people still use plastic containers? How many people still drive cars?
Plastic containers did't fall out of the sky - neither did cars. The people who benefit from their production doesn't live on Mount Olympus - we can strip them (and the political structures that enables them) of their power and fix these things. It's not some pipe dream or an ideal - it's literally the only way to guarantee humanity's continued survival on this planet.
but they aren’t grounded in reality
The only thing you seem to have "grounded in reality" is that the destruction of literally everything should be "compromised" with. It seems the only thing you are willing to do is compromise - but I guess that's where the money is, huh?
it was before he was an actual celebrity and was only known for creating Tesla/SpaceX. He was also "only" a millionaire and well before Tesla stock went nuts, and he also wasn't posting like crazy on Twitter so people only knew him via Tesla and SpaceX's achievements, both of them legendary underdogs looking to overthrow the well-established big industry corporations.
what? The "left" has always been the side of revolutionary upstarts and underdogs. The right is the conservative, old guard, established players.
you're literally trying to rewrite history just to try to hate Musk a little more
The “left” has always been the side of revolutionary upstarts and underdogs.
It's okay... you can just admit you don't have the foggiest clue what it is you are talking about.
You can't fix something if you don't even admit to it, yes?
Of course they can; someone on the right has always been right and could never admit to not being right.
I think it's important to distinct what part of the left.
Most of the left on Lemmy? Probably not.
A lot of liberals who align themselves with the US democrats? There was a lot of support until the famous pedo incident.
The Overtoon Window is so far to the right in the US that their "Left" are nationalist pro-business neoliberals and their "Right" are ultra-nationalist anti-immigrant anti-abortion neoliberals, so basically in what is the Right to Far-Right range in continental Europe.
Along with pre-pandemic (roughly) Musk, Sam Bankman Freed was also buddies with the left and even had a second co-ceo to court the right wing politicians while he hung out with the left wing (those that were dumb enough to believe in crypto anyway).
No offence intended... but this post has shown me just what a completely warped idea people have in regards to what "left" and "right" even means - very few people here seem to even know that anti-capitalism is where the left starts...
Tbh I liked him when the whole GME thing happened, because when Robinhood screwed over all the GME holders Elon blew the lid off of Dogecoin and I basically made all my profits back. I also thought him poking fun at the SEC while all that happened was pretty ballsy and I respected that.
But now he's made it known that he's a conservative bootlicker, transphobe, antivaxx, corporate shill... 🤷♀️
I don't know what you call left or who you hang out with, but this has literally never happened.
Maybe you're confusing "centrist" (aka right wingers) with leftists just because they oppose building concentration camps (on the fact of it only) or something like that.
I'm so tired of seeing mean gross old white men scowling all over my damn feed any time anyone shares an article.
Pretty sick of them wrecking the world, some of us will get stuck with clean/ survival because of them.
I couldn't say because it never really happens enough to make me sick of seeing them being such shitty people it regularly makes headlines.
I am. I didn't say it doesn't happen just not enough to make me sick of seeing his face. Is this a test or something am I being tested for reverse racism or something because I mentioned white men??
THIS oh gawwwd, couldn't agree more. Tired of reading news about this guy talking unintelligent crap. Dear people, for him even negative publicity is still publicity and for us it is a waste of our attention, 1 cent of which he doesn't deserve.
You're not wrong but it's also the people's fault as well for engaging so much with this bullshit. I swear 90% of the internet exists simply to circle jerk about things people hate while the remaining 10% actually talks about things they like. I'll never understand why people choose to talk so much about the things they hate, just fucking downvote and move on to something you actually like.
All publicity is good for these pieces of shit, stop feeding into the rage cycle and they wouldn't be covered so much. Or they'd have to pay more for their coverage at the very least.
Twitter saboteur wanting to move onto sabotaging Wikipedia, the biggest reference source in the world that's only accessible via the internet, on his crusade against truth and facts? Of course it's tech news.
I mean the post has convinced me to donate to Wikipedia. It's newsworthy. I hate Musk as much as you, but I can't just stick my head in the dirt.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to unplug from it, but don't begrudge others for not wanting to.
He runs a social media platform of influence. It's tech.
Don't like it? Hide the post and move on.
Someone should tell Elon that an unprofitable website and a non-profit website are not the same thing.
Unless Wikipedia is a public company with fiduciary responsibilities, can’t they just say, “fuck you. No.”?
EDIT: They’re a non commercial 501(c)(3). They can say “fuck you. No.”
Well I’m sure glad someone looked into that. Still, I’m anxious he might try to do Bad Things™ to it. Ya know, like he does whenever he gets some idea in his head about something, and then Bad Things™ happen to it.
There's that, and the fact that Jimmy Wales might have a reverse uno card, as he is quietly developing a free and non profit social media platform of his own called trust cafe.
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.
I can't! I have to keep my feet on the ground! Man I loved the fuck out of that movie as a kid
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.
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.
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.
Also, again, there are absolutely editors who will just wordlessly revert objective, factual edits, with clear, proper citations from accepted primary sources...
That might be the misunderstanding. Primary sources are not directly allowed on wikipedia without very careful consideration that no analysis was done. Wikipedia article are, and should be, mostly derived from secondary sources to avoid bias. The Wikipedia page does a pretty good job of describing the guideline:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
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...
Just follow the sources then. Everything that should be credible is backed by sources, and if you can't believe that source then ignore it , or admit your trust issues.
What is, on a controversial issue, one side is presented with sources, and the other side is not mentioned at all or given just a brief overview?
This often happens on Wikipedia, even when the editors aren't trying to be biased. Suppose there was a dispute between the British Empire and a small tribe in South Africa. The British side of the story will have a lot of sources, most in English. The tribal side will most likely be known only to locals, with maybe some articles in Zulu and one in Dutch. How do you think the Wikipedia article will look?
To be fair, Wikipedia is trying to enact policies to address such biases, but there is still a lot of work to be done.
Wikipedia should run a fund raiser: "Give us a billion dollars or we'll change the name."
Can you shut the fuck up with the legit amazing and hilarious things that need to happen you're saying ;)
Wikipedia is not the Achilles heel of free access to information. The Achilles heel are the sources: libraries, websites.
Consider donating to the internet archive instead or as well. If the sources are poisoned, Wikipedia just repeats bullshit. It's secondary literature.
I believe they mean that if Wikipedia dies, we are still able to get proper information from the actual sources.
Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.
Since we can still get the info, we don't succumb. If the primary sources get altered, then nothing in reality can be trusted.
Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.
Wikipedia actually much prefers secondary and even tertiary sources to primary sources. They have rules against original research, and follows the guideline that "secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". It's only with exception that primary sources are allowed, in which the primary sources "have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
Not disagreeing with you, just a bit of nuance.
Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.
Technically, I think they only allow primary sources to be referenced if supported by a secondary source. They have weird and complex rules around that,
You can: Ban books, burn papers, delete servers, hack articles, AI creations, talk louder than reality.
A few years ago, I set up a monthly donation. Of all things I can use for free on the internet, Wikipedia deserves it the most.
The entirety of the Musk sycophant Twitter sphere lost their mind about Wikipedia’s finances this week. Only because this dipshit tweeted a lie. Crazy how people can’t fathom that a non-profit that runs one of the most successful websites ever has high costs because they pay their engineers well. These people truly believe that everyone working at a non-profit should get starvation wages.
I work at a very large non profit and I am paid quite well. The work is extremely difficult and anxiety inducing but the payoff isn't really the money but the good I know I am helping to do.
But the good pay makes it so you have the mental energy to dedicate to the job and not need to worry as much about your finances and maybe have to leave, or do a worse job. I'm for genuine non profit work still being paid fair wages and more within reason. So much of the world relies on non profit programs for something!
As a fairly high up Fed that used to work for a well paid 501c3 same as you I know what you mean.
Wikipedia does funnel money into charity causes that aren't related to their mission of bringing knowledge to the world. I personally have a hard time reconciling that with the constant begging for donations. I'd rather they set up an endowment or focus the money on items related to the mission.
That being said, paying people well to get bright people working on their mission is a no brainer.
Wikipedia as an organization does this?? News to me so I'd love a source on that. I would not be surprised if people that work at Wikipedia donate to charitable causes or speak out about social issues, but that's a very different thing called free speech
Even internally, there's a lot of complaints about the tone of the donation drives. What's scary is that these are the pleas that passed. Worse ones were vetoed by community vote.
Ive responded elsewhere in this thread, and think we are otherwise aligned against this cunt, so maybe, just maybe this is a good time to give Wikipedia one of your hard earned dollars? One dollar.
Damn, finally got me to donate to Wikipedia. Years of successful ignorance down the drain - fucking thanks Elon. GUH
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.
Much of Musk’s consternation with Wikipedia appears to be less about its features but more about his inability to control what it says about him.
After ruining Twitter, Elon just want the world’s most popular encyclopaedia bend towards his will.
People should seriously consider the possibility of migrating to alternative platforms like Mastodon and WireMin. While these platforms may still be in their early stages, they will never be controlled by Elon or anyone else. Because unlike Twitter, which operates on central servers controlled by Elon, Mastodon and WireMin are decentralized. And it’s important to convey to Elon that X is fundamentally reliant on us, the users.
DON'T YOU THREATEN SOMETHING I ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT, FUCKER.
But seriously, I can't imagine the fine folks at Wikimedia seeing what happened to shitter and thinking there's any value in having him in charge.
You suck, Lonnie. Go away.
Yeah I can't wait to read all articles with facts replaced by Republican fantasy. Trump actually won the last election with 99% votes? Oh it must be true then.
No but when he Googles himself - which I am sure he does daily, then he'll know to stay within the confines of his X domain. We're claiming back the internets. :)
Seriously though, some young person might still look up to him as a space role-model without ever knowing that the guy is a waste of space.
can a wiki editor plz change his main profile pic to that balding paypal one he loves so much? k thnx bai.
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.
So he did get Twitter just to ruin it and take it away from the left. This proves it, because he wants to do it again to Wikipedia whilst calling it "Wokipedia" like a broken, right wing soundboard. Neither platform allowed lies and, since it's the right and their only move is lies, in his view that makes them biased. Elon intentionally sabotaged twitter because it wouldn't let him and his rich cunt friends lie and now they want to do it to Wikipedia. He genuinely doesn't have a moral foundation, it's just lies and manipulation all the way down to his shriveled, rotten core.
“I will give them a billion dollars if they change their name to D**kipedia.”
This is what we’re working with. A small child.
Musk is always looking for his next high. He desperately wants that bong hit of attention that getting his name in the news brings to him. He's an attention whore, who can afford to burn through billions of dollars. I'm surprised he didn't buy Reddit years ago.
