Quoting opinion pieces in rags like the Washington Post (owned by Musk's bitter personal rival Jeff Bezos) is not the way for us to come to a consensus on what is true (or not) about Musk.
In 2023 there were terrible wildfires in Greece. The media immediately jumped on it and claimed climate change was responsible. Anyone who questioned the narrative was a "climate change denier" or "conspiracy theorist"
Then, later on, we discovered there had been 79 arrests for arson. Obviously, the media barely covered this. Only on free speech platforms like X was the truth revealed, and now, it is also documented on Wikipedia:
Today's "conspiracy theory" often turns out to be tomorrow's fact - so don't be so quick to judge Musk. He probably knows more about the wildfires than you do, given he runs a large network of hundreds of millions of users.
He's got over a decade's worth of lies behind him now. When someone is of such weak character that they feel the need to lie about being good at video games then there's not much more to say.
> He probably knows more about the wildfires than you do
He doesn't. He endorses conspiracy theories.
Carl Sagan was right. You're no longer able to distinguish between what feels good and what's true.
Claiming "disinformation is subjective" and then cherry picking something to avoid all of it isn't even a credible attempt. Consensus isn't the objective, forwarding arguments that hold water is. You haven't disputed a mentioned single fact, so I take it you know they're indeed facts.
