People def do and that's totally fine. You don't feel like the fact that this "movement" is funded by a WalMart heiress is fishy? Full page NYT ads trying to mobilize people into protest?
Organic protests of any sort is fine. Between this shit and the "ChaoticGood" marketing operation ran for Geese, you cannot begin to understand how much of the interaction you see on the web is bought and paid for.
This is an ad hominem attack. It doesn’t matter what the origin of a fact is if it is verifiable and accurate.
Elon is the largest individual political donor ever. I think a billionaire funding counter-protests is not that fishy in contrast.
I don't think a movement having a bit of funding for the organizers is that big of a deal though. The actual protesters are there because they want to be.
Edit: He's actually the largest individual political donor ever within a single political cycle, which is still quite significant (he's outspending the next largest in this cycle by about 3:1), but also very different. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/10/27/tracking-the-money...
I think a guy selling his own bible is more fishy.
Or a million dollar lottery ticket if you vote republican.
Or Oracle buying news stations and papers with the son of president.
But that's just my opinion
How does it feel to be part of Putin's disinformation campaign?
What, you don't enjoy having your opinions dismissed because someone famous shares them?
> Full page NYT ads trying to mobilize people into protest?
You don't think the fullblown fascist takeover of the American government warrants that? Agree to disagree I guess.
It is inorganic, but no more so than the MAGA rallies. They're not trying to hide that they're organized by and on behalf of the Democratic party.
I also think they're pretty cringe, but that seems orthogonal to the question of why Meta is censoring their accounts. I haven't seen any suggestion that they violated meta's policies.