If ever there were a case for the importance of physical media it’s the subtle and not-so-subtle edits that can be made to movies by streaming platforms. Whether it’s Netflix changing the Skins soundtrack for viewers in the U.S. or Amazon cutting content from Robin Hood (2010), even small changes can completely change a piece of media for better or worse. 1w6e50

In this case a very obvious change has been made to the intro to the Ridley Scott adaptation of Robin Hood (the one with Russell Crowe). The edit was spotted by a woman on TikTok, @theshannonduke0, who shared her findings.

The moment in question happens right at the start of the film and can be seen on Amazon Prime. Shannon records her screen and points out that the intro text is gone. There is just a background of yellowish parchment paper with faded letters, but it’s obvious there was supposed to be some text overlaid on top, and yet, it’s not there.

What did the text originally say? 6f1h24

Luckily for us, there are plenty of versions of this film knocking about so it’s not too difficult to find and read the text that was supposed to be there originally. Shannon delves into the mystery herself and discovers just what the text says.

“In times of tyranny and injustice when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history.”

Interesting. Given the current state of politics in America people online naturally came to the conclusion that this text was omitted on of the message it portrays. Donald Trump’s time in the White House so far has already been described as “tyrannical” and when innocent people are being sent to prison camps in El Salvador I don’t think it’s unfair to say America is living in times of “injustice” too.

The founder and former CEO of Amazon, Billionaire Jeff Bezos, made an appearance at Trump’s inauguration and, even after the Trump tariff debacle, seems to be on pretty good with the president. Given that the text at the beginning of the film demonizes the authoritarian rule of those in power while glorifying “the outlaw,” many concluded that this was intentional censorship on Amazon’s part.

Was this really censorship from Amazon? 45341q

Responding to Shannon’s video many believed that this was intentional, one individual commented, “Scary, that’s a pretty obscure movie to be censoring like that.” However, others pointed out that the missing text was likely due to it being the “international version” which allows for the text to be changed to the native language of the country it’s being streamed in. If this were the case then the missing text would be a simple mistake and not some sinister attempt at censorship.

However, people from English-speaking countries outside the U.S., such as Canada and Ireland, pointed out that the text was still there for them meaning the U.S. may be the only version where the text is inexplicably missing. Others in the comments claimed that the text has been missing since before Trump became president.

Whether or not this is a case of intentional censorship or not remains unclear but given the growing class tensions in America it’s easy to see why people would suspect Amazon of removing the content on purpose.

Amazon‘s Jeff Bezos seems to be feeling buyer’s remorse when it comes to his political endorsements. The billionaire was overjoyed when Trump won re-election, donated to his inauguration fund, and was pictured clapping along in the crowd as a guest of honor.

Unfortunately for ol’ Jeff, the Trump train turned out to be coming right at him, and he was strapped firmly to the tracks. Amazon relies on cheap imports and exports to do business: some of its products are shipped directly from China to US consumers, many more are manufactured in China and imported to Amazon’s vast warehouses.

That means Trump’s colossal tariffs on Chinese imports represent a nightmare situation for the company, effectively destroying their business model. Now, there are reports that Amazon is fighting back by displaying the “tariff cost” next to each product’s listed price, which would show consumers exactly how much Donald Trump is costing them with each purchase.

Q: "Amazon will soon display…how much the Trump tariffs are adding to the cost of each product. Isn't that a perfect, crystal clear demonstration that it's the American consumer….who is going to pay for these">

This will underline how the Trump regime is hitting consumers in their wallets, and the White House is incandescent with rage. During Tuesday’s press briefing a reporter asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent if they’d heard the news, and whether they thought it was a ““crystal clear demonstration that it’s the American consumer, and not China, who is going to have to pay for these policies.”

Leavitt proceeded to all but declare war on Amazon, describing this as a “hostile and political act” and wondering “why didn’t Amazon do this when the Biden istration hiked inflation to the highest level in 40 years?”. I’m uh, not quite sure that’s how inflation works Karoline, but you do you!

Trump himself is obviously boiling over with rage (expect an all-caps Truth Social post soon!) with Leavitt confirming she’s spoken to him about this, which informed her angry response to the question. But while the Trump team can (and will) keep beating the “Biden bad!” drum as hard as they can, it’s impossible to argue that the impending massive tariff costs don’t have Donald J. Trump’s name all over them.

Trump’s popularity is already plummeting, so who knows how much he’ll be hated when $50 gets added to every single purchase on Amazon?

]]>

Life has not exactly been kind to Elon Musk lately. The tech billionaire has had a rough 2025 after his transition into politics saw his electric car company, Tesla, experience a severe drop-off in market value. Now Jeff Bezos, one of his competitors, is looking to make moves on Musk’s turf with his own electric vehicle.

Bezos has invested in plenty of businesses and start-ups much like Musk and it’s put the two billionaires in direct competition before. Recently we’ve seen the Bezos-backed company, Blue Origin, make huge strides in achieving space travel. Of course, so far we’ve only seen rich celebrities make the trip which hasn’t exactly made for the best publicity.

Jeff Bezos’ car company 443j5h

Now Bezos is reportedly moving into the electric vehicle industry by backing a new start-up. But these new cars won’t be your average, run-of-the-mill EVs, oh no, they’re special. The company, known as Slate, have proposed a complete re-invention of the EV with cars that can be transformed at will. Say you need more storage space, you can reassemble your car into a pick-up. And then say you want to take a chill drive down to the beach, just transform it into a sleek convertible. 

It’s a pretty revolutionary concept and it’s easy to see the appeal. Slate has more than a few rich backers providing funding for these futuristic cars so it’s actually possible we could see this concept become a reality. The best part is that they aim to make these new cars more affordable than current EVs.

This could be the final nail in Elon Musk’s coffin 2h3r50

This news will no doubt be like salt in the wound for Musk who’s own electric vehicle company has been limping through 2025 so far. The Tesla CEO has seen profits plummet ever since he took on the advisory role in DOGE. 

Musk’s involvement in politics and his decision to align himself with Donald Trump has seen huge public backlash. His showrooms have been vandalised and his customer base has dried up (turns out there’s not a lot of crossover between EV drivers and MAGA voters). His infamously ugly and unsafe Cybertruck has also had to be recalled due to the exterior trim literally peeling off.

All of this has seen Tesla stocks plunge and the billionaire lose a significant amount of money. As such Musk has announced he’ll be stepping back from his government role, although it might be a little too late now. 

The market is getting more competitive when it comes to electric vehicles and with Tesla’s reputation in the mud right now it’s entirely possible that we could see Musk’s company dethroned by the Bezos backed start-up.

You may have heard of the fake moon landing conspiracy, you may have even heard of the flat earth theory, but nothing, and I mean nothing, can prepare you for the conspiracy theory regarding Katy Perry and the rest of her crew aboard the Blue Origin. Get ready to have your mind blown.

Would you believe me if I told you some people online are expressing doubt over whether the all-female crew of the Blue Origin really went to space? Crazy I know. The idea that armchair experts with no experience in space flight should come out of the woodwork and label something as “fake” is absurd. But there are some that think they’ve noticed a few rookie errors Jeff Bezos and his crew made that prove the whole thing is a hoax.

Did Katy Perry really go to space, some doubt it 2w5e4m

Analysts from all over the world have shared their expertise. On X the main point of controversy was the opening of the hatch. A video shared online shows the door being opened from the inside before someone outside shuts it. Bezos then arrives to open the hatch with a specialized tool despite the fact it already appeared to be open.

There’s definitely something fishy going on here. Maybe the whole thing really was faked. Or maybe the alien they replaced Katy Perry with opened the hatch with its telekinetic powers. Others chimed in with observations of their own. One person asked “Where are the burn marks from reentry?” Another pointed out that the craft looked too clean to have really been to outer space.

Let’s use our brains for a second 4e54x

Far be it from me to argue with these experts but I have to ask: what would be the point in faking this whole thing? I get that with the moon landing people claimed the U.S. was trying to beat Russia to the punch which some would say is reason enough for the government to fake such an event. But who are Bezos and Katy Perry trying to beat?

As for the door, there’s a more reasonable explanation. It’s possible the team just wanted a good PR moment with the cameras showing Bezos opening the door. At least that’s what some speculated anyway.

I mean I get it but also so what? So what if the script was to open the front where all the cameras are. It’s ok they fixed their mistake. I don’t see an issue here. They wanted to capture a moment for the press. Totally fine by me

— David (@husky6678) April 15, 2025

Perhaps people are just looking into this a little too much. We have to bear in mind the capsule only just made it past the Kármán Line, which is internationally recognized as the boundary of space. The whole flight only lasted roughly 11 minutes. The capsule isn’t going to look dirtied and battered after such a short time in the air.

If you don’t believe the flight was real you can buy a ticket and go yourself. But it’ll set you back millions of dollars (somewhere around $28 million potentially). For 11 minutes in space that feels like a waste of money, you’d probably be better off spending all that dough on Tesla stocks or something.

This past week has seen a lot of influential figures come forward with their criticisms of President Donald Trump. Even billionaires like Elon Musk have voiced their grievances. But we’ve yet to hear anything from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

People are calling for him to make a stand against Trump and one of the most vocal individuals making the demand actually works for Bezos. Bradley Whitford, who stars prominently in the Amazon adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale, risked his own career by standing by his principles (like our hero Rachel Zegler). The actor called for Bezos to do the right thing and say something against Trump.

What did Bradley Whitford say? 2e693

Speaking to Variety, the 65-year-old discussed his role in the fictional future America where women have been enslaved by fanatical Christian nationalists. While the show and the book it’s based on seemed far-fetched when the first season aired, the U.S. today is looking a lot more like Gilead in the present.

Whitford partly blames both his current and former network bosses who he says contributed to Trump’s rise to power. 

“It’s interesting, especially when you look at all the people who I’ve worked for over the years lined up at the Trump inauguration, staying silent while their daughters’ rights are being torn away.”

Bezos was present at the Trump inauguration on January 20th. The billionaire also scrapped the endorsement of Kamala Harris from The Washington Post 11 days before the election. Bezos bought the national newspaper back in 2013, but previously pledged it would maintain its independence. Given his decision to intervene in the running of the paper last year it’s safe to say that was a lie.

Whitford calls out Jeff Bezos directly 25345l

Of course, Bradley didn’t stop with a subtle dig at his boss. Later in the interview he doubled down, “I’m p***ed at all the people I work for. Like, ‘F***ING. SPEAK. UP,’[…] And Jeff Bezos, f***ing speak up!” When asked whether he would say the same thing to the billionaire in person Whitford responded, “I don’t want to be a punk attacking, but I would really like to ask Jeff Bezos […] ‘What the hell is happening here?!’”

Bezos was long thought to be liberal-libertarian in his politics. He had donated to causes ing sam-sex marriages but also lower taxes on the rich. He ed both Democratic and Republican politicians according to Slate.com. 

Many rich folk who previously endorsed Trump have turned against him in the last week. Clearly the president’s tariffs have hit their bank s. It would be interesting to see whether or not Bezos’ opinion on the president has changed since November 5.

Won’t someone please spare a thought for our unfortunate billionaires? Donald Trump‘s chaotic tariffs went off like a dirty bomb in global stock exchanges yesterday, with financial charts all showing catastrophic declines reminiscent of the 2008 market crash or the rise of COVID.

But, unlike those two financial disasters, yesterday’s debacle wasn’t the result of accumulated years of bad bets or a black swan global event, but entirely down to one man. As the markets closed, white-faced investors, brokers, and economists were left staring down the barrel of a jaw-dropping $2.4 trillion loss. This potentially gives Trump the all-time historical record of a person burning the most money in a single day.

Everyone on the planet will be affected by Trump’s tariffs in some way, whether it be through rising consumer prices, governments being forced to cut spending, or job losses in industries that import goods into the United States.

But, as always, the real victims in all this have been the unfortunate billionaires, who may have to skip out on that coveted ivory backscratcher, solid gold toilet, or that one Picasso that’d really bring their private art gallery together.

As per Bloomberg, the world’s 500 richest people saw their combined wealth shrinking by $208 billion. Plus, and this is definitely the time to break out the tiny violin, US tech billionaires were among the hardest hit. Say it ain’t so!

Mark Zuckerberg was the biggest casualty, and is now practically a pauper after the stock market slide cost him $17.9 billion. He’ll have some company down on the bread line, as Jeff Bezos lost $15.9 billion, and Elon Musk lost $11 billion. Musk alone has lost $110 billion as a result of Trump’s policies since the inauguration. Keep an eye out for their GoFundMe campaigns soon and, if you have a heart, chip in a few bucks to keep food on their tables.

All three of these men dutifully lined up behind Trump at his inauguration, whooping and cheering as he once again took office. We suspect Bezos and Zuckerberg may be feeling some buyer’s remorse, perhaps wistfully staring at a faded picture of Kamala Harris and wondering “What if..">Trump couldn’t be happier. As the dust settled on this chaos, he was asked how it was going. “Very well!”. He cheerfully added: “The markets are going to boom, the stocks are going to boom, the country is going to boom.” Possibly he’s right, though the chance of those “booms” being literal explosions is rising by the hour.

To his credit, Trump has achieved in a single day what decades of anti-capitalist protests and left-wing agitation couldn’t. Perhaps nobody in history has financially harmed billionaires more than he has! If only he could limit the damage he inflicts to them alone…

There’s a reason why every major corporate mogul and multi-billionaire flocked to Donald Trump‘s side during the 2024 elections, and no, unless you’re living inside a candy castle in the clouds, the common good had nothing to do with it.

During his first tenure, Trump introduced the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which significantly reduced the corporate tax rate. According to the POTUS himself, the idea was to promote investment and job creation, but all the legislation ever managed to accomplish was line the pockets of the top 1% earners while giving marginal benefits to the majority. The TCJA ended up increasing the federal debt and making the outrageous wealth inequality in America even worse.

In his first Congressional address, Trump doubled down on these tax policies and explicitly asked the legislative branch to commit to the TCJA. And if that doesn’t explain why Trump and Elon Musk are now best buddies, I don’t know what will. And yet, it seems like even the rich hadn’t exactly counted on Trump’s erratic and unhinged behavior in his burgeoning second istration to complicate their agendas. As the former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull recently said, we’re now dealing with “undiluted” Trump, so of course those tariffs and mass layoffs were going to affect the billionaires’ precious stocks.

According to a new report by Bloomberg, the billionaires who were standing at Trump’s side and grinning ear to ear during his inauguration — including three of the wealthiest people in the world Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos — have lost over $200 billion just in the past few weeks. The companies these people represent took the biggest losses since Jan. 17, the last trading day before inauguration, dropping a whopping $1.39 trillion in market value.

Musk, who is Trump’s closest and most trusted advisor, lost more than the rest of them combined, with his collective net worth now down $148 billion after reaching an all-time high following Trump’s win in the election. Musk’s Tesla shares had almost doubled in value in Q4 2024, but with the tariffs hitting Tesla’s Chinese shipments and the consumer base in Europe boycotting Musk for his advocacy of far-right politicians, the company is fast losing its market value.

Next on the list is Jeff Bezos, who ed Trump by withholding The Washington Post‘s presidential endorsement, congratulating the president on his win, and donating $1 million to his inauguration fund in December. Amazon’s shares have fallen by 14% since Jan. 17, with Bezos losing $29 billion of his net worth.

As for the other three, Sergey Brin (the former co-founder of Google) lost $22 billion, while Mark Zuckerberg and Bernard Arnault (CEO of Louis Vuitton) are down $5 billion each. Not exactly a dent in their egregious pile, but with the stock market continuing its downward spiral and Trump doubling down on his nonsensical economic initiatives, this is only the beginning for these large corporations.

These billionaires are set to recuperate some of these losses when Trump’s tax breaks go into effect again, but where that leaves the rest of the American people, already plagued by rising inflation as a result of those tariffs, is a whole different story.

There’s a saying that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. And right now, America’s media landscape is hitting some familiar notes.

Jeff Bezos has announced that The Washington Post’s opinion section will take a new editorial direction, focusing exclusively on “personal liberties and free markets.” (What better time to rebrand The Post as a staunch defender of free markets? If your newspaper becomes the loudest cheerleader for free markets, it might just make it harder for regulators to paint Amazon as a monopolist.)

More importantly, the billionaire also made it crystal clear that dissenting opinions are someone else’s problem. In his own words: opposing viewpoints “will be left to be published by others.” David Shipley, the now-former opinion editor, declined to stick around for this new vision. Bezos told Shipley that if his answer wasn’t a “hell yes,” it had to be a “no.” Shipley chose the latter, stepping away after only a year on the job. Bezos has promised to find someone new to “own” this editorial direction.

The whole idea of staying “neutral” in journalism or opinions is a load of crap. It’s a feel-good concept presented as a virtue, but in practice, it’s often just a convenient excuse to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths. It’s the same logic that keeps news outlets endlessly giving airtime to “both sides” of an issue, even when one side is clearly wrong. Climate change? Let’s put a scientist debating a guy like Andrew Tate with a YouTube channel on the same . Racism? Surely there’s a “neutral” position somewhere in the middle!

If this were ancient Greece, the Washington Post’s opinion section would be Socrates, sipping its last cup of editorial hemlock. The philosopher paid the ultimate price for asking uncomfortable questions. His method of relentlessly questioning the status quo made him a thorn in the side of Athens’ elites, who convicted him of “corrupting the youth.” 

If it were the Catholic Church of the Renaissance, Jeff Bezos would be penning his very own Index Librorum Prohibitorum — a list of ideas deemed too dangerous (or inconvenient) to publish. And if we were in Hans Christian Andersen’s Denmark, Bezos might just be the emperor strutting around in an invisible suit of “personal liberties and free markets.” In Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, a vain emperor is conned into believing he’s wearing magical garments that only the wise can see. Everyone around him, too afraid to call him out, pretends they see the clothes. It takes a child to point out the obvious: the emperor is naked.

In the end, it’s hard to ignore how convenient this newfound ion for less government intervention is, given that Bezos’ other little project, Amazon, is facing a massive antitrust lawsuit — the trial for which is scheduled for Oct. 2026. On the other hand, The Washington Post was an outspoken critic of the government, with Trump frequently targeting Bezos personally. But in recent years, Bezos has taken a noticeably softer stance. Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, and The Post even refrained — or was prevented — from making an endorsement in the 2024 presidential race.

Bezos isn’t the only tech titan using his platform to reshape public discourse. Mark Zuckerberg is busy relocating Meta’s trust and safety teams to Texas — you know, MAGA country — while pledging to work with Donald Trump to “push back” against global censorship. Meanwhile, Elon Musk has turned Twitter into a free-for-all, where misinformation thrives. Together, these three billionaires are like the Avengers of corporate libertarianism, except they’re saving the free market — from you.

Donald Trump hasn’t spent more than 24 hours as president, but 47 is already wielding executive orders as carefully as the Hulk makes his way through downtown New York. He’s stripped trans folks like his own er, Caitlyn Jenner, of the right to be referred to as a woman, fired every government employee he perceives as a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hire, and pardoned roughly 1,500 January 6’ers with a stroke of his pen.

His every move is being celebrated by his ers, but no one is more excited about Trump than the three richest men in the world. Tech billionaires Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk were more than happy to stand behind Trump on his big day and even happier to wield that legislative power. Zuckerberg is already amending algorithms on Instagram and surprise, surprise, it’s appears to be targeting hashtags in of Democrats.

It’s totally true, folks: Instagram was hiding the results of words like ‘democrats’—but the site claims that it was an “error affecting hashtags across the political spectrum.” s quickly started testing words to see what was still permissible, and while ‘Republican” was A-OK, anything that might’ve been considered “anti-red,” like ‘republicans,’ went straight to the no-no list, and it immediately kicked off a waves of conspiracy theories.

s reported that the search results for #BernieSanders, #Queer, #Obama, #Voteblue, #DNC, #Kamala, #Constitution, #Jan6th, #Insurrection, #14th amendment, #JackSmith, #DomesticTerrorist, #Fascism, #Liberal, #rightwing, #GeorgeConway, #JohnOliver, #Drumpf, and of course, #FuckTrump all had errors as of 6:00am on Jan. 21.

Meanwhile phrases like #VoteRed, #RNC, and #F*ckBiden are all still available for use on the platform, making the line in the sand completely un-ignorable. Meta responded to the BBC’s request for comment, saying it was working to fix the issue and that it was aware that “they risk fueling conspiracy theories and damaging Meta’s reputation.”

If a suspicious algorithm flub wasn’t enough, The Independent reported that some Meta s said they were automatically following Trump’s pages even though they never voluntarily elected to do so. Trump and his cronies have been crooning about freedom of speech for years. Musk considers himself a “free speech absolutist,” but their conduct has shown the complete opposite.

On Trump’s first day in office, he signed 200 executive orders, including the “RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP,” which claims the Biden istration “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms.”

“Under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation,’…. the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.” 

Of course, Instagram isn’t a branch of the government, but the provisions put in place by the Biden istration were meant to help combat the excessive Russian interference via social media we saw during the 2016 election.

Conspiracy theorists were quick to point out that the censorship, should it remain, will draw the ire of the EU, which has already been openly waging war against big tech. If the European Union were to blanket ban the apps over conservative censorship, everyday Americans would be cut off from a wellspring of and outside influence. One dreary Redditor compared the idea to “crabs in a bucket.”

There will, of course, still be ways for Americans to connect with those overseas even if the EU were to ban apps like Facebook and TikTok, but with more than 50% of adults relying on social media for news, the few crabs to escape the bucket will have little sway over their entrenched fellows.

Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk all attended Trump’s inauguration, and in the wake of his election win, the tech giants donated millions to the ceremony. We all knew the tech royals were more than excited to fall in line with Trump, but as one commenter said, “I didn’t expect them to be diving so quickly into fascism. Even the Nazis were a bit more subtle at the start.”

When we already have too much Elon Musk in our newsfeed, stories have spread online that the Tesla owner and freshly minted Trump advisor bought online retail giant Amazon. It’s not true. However, a feud between Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos might help explain the speculation.

According to Snopes, the story that Musk, the world’s richest man, has added Amazon to his portfolio seemingly started on a YouTube channel called Elon Musk Rewind, which has since been taken down. Before that, though, the long-running channel had hundreds of thousands of followers and regularly posted Musk content, so to some, the story seemed reasonable.

The video announcing the Amazon news was titled, “Elon Musk Just BOUGHT Amazon & Ends All Competition!” That YouTube post was shared thousands of times online, and, as these things go, many more clickbait posts showed Musk holding an Amazon contract like the one below.

All combined, Musk bought Twitter (now X) two years ago and has long sparred with his billionaire rival. So the announcement he’d acquired another internet monolith seemed, on the one hand, not so unreasonable. But Musk’s photo with the Amazon contract proved to be AI-generated, the YouTube video and channel subsequently and inexplicably disappeared, no legitimate news sources have reported the acquisition, and, at this point, falsely claiming Musk has purchased other major companies — including CNN — is an entire online fake news genre of its own.

The rich guys are fighting, though 2w6b5t

With that settled, “Dark Maga” Musk news — the proposed head of an entirely new government agency, the “Department of Government Efficiency,” in the second Trump istration, and known for regularly firing rockets into space with SpaceX — rarely needs an accelerant to go viral.

So, possibly adding fuel to the Amazon flame, Musk did pick a fight with Bezos when he said Bezos told others to sell their SpaceX and Tesla stock because Trump would lose, and as a result, because Musk ed Trump, Tesla stock would tank. See below:

Bezos — who also owns The Washington Post, was already in some political hot water for reportedly nixing a planned Kamala Harris endorsement from the outlet — chimed in on Musk’s post, clarifying, “This is 100% not true.” And graciously, Musk commented, “Well then, I stand corrected.”

Amazon and Trump aside, in the context of Musk and Bezos, we’d like to steer the conversation to what Senator Bernie Sanders has to say about the two tabloid-friendly oligarchs here:

Finally, there is some actual legal news to share about Musk and Bezos. Since Musk took over X, ad revenue has declined on the platform. Musk has named Twitch — which Bezos also owns in a lawsuit, along with several other companies — for illegally conspiring to bring down X.

In August, X CEO Linda Yaccarino shared this post about the legal action below. “The illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars,” Yaccarino said. Musk put it more plainly when he said, in a post of his own, “We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war.”

Boycott or not, multiple reports say that post-Trump win, some rs have returned to X, and Musk’s Tesla stock has surged, adding $70 billion – with a “b” — to Musk’s bottom line, according to some estimates. So maybe Musk’s Trump was a business decision and not based on policy, after all. Oh, will our corporate overlords ever stop fighting? Who knows. Musk and Bezos are locked in a space race, and as far as we’re concerned, both men can colonize Mars on their own, and that day can’t come soon enough.

People are praising The Washington Post’s social media team after they ed a TikTok video calling out the newspaper’s billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, for choosing not to endorse any candidate for president. 

For context, Bezos and The Washington Post have been at the center of much scrutiny this week, after it was revealed that one of the world’s richest men — who took ownership of the newspaper in 2013 — personally intervened to stop the paper endorsing Kamala Harris. 

Among other details, it was reported that Post staff had already drafted an endorsement of the Democratic candidate before Bezos told them to scrap it, and that journalists were “shocked” and held “uniformly negative” views of his decision. In protest, some 250,000 (and counting) readers cancelled their subscriptions.

Now, The Post’s official TikTok has taken to the platform to address the controversy, while explaining how Bezos’ billionaire status, and desire to maintain healthy business relationships with both candidates, may have driven his decision.

In the video, The Post staffer plays the role of both a journalist at the paper and Bezos himself, and engages in a discussion about how the billionaire, who has business dealings at the federal level, might be “worried about retribution” if Donald Trump is elected. 

The video explains how Bezos’ fear of ruining his federal business dealings — mostly involving his spaceship company Blue Origin and its contracts with NASA — might have been informed by Trump’s previous statements about Bezos’ peers. The former president has threatened fellow billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg in the past, which may have spurred Bezos to soften on Trump if he wins the election. 

In the accompanying TikTok caption, The Post explains that Bezos’ non-endorsement approach is being “hailed” by Trump allies as a “sign of neutrality” and a “peace offering,” allowing billionaires to maintain a copacetic relationship with the White House and preserve their future federal dealings. 

The caption also quotes a source from the Trump campaign who claims that multiple billionaires and businesspeople have softened their approach to the GOP candidate because they believe he’s heading to the White House again. “A lot of billionaires have been to fancy parties where Trump happens to be, to stay in his orbit,” the video explains. 

Interestingly, the video mentions the Watergate scandal of Richard Nixon’s presidency, which The Post played a major role in uncovering. So major, in fact, that that paper became heralded as a shining gold standard of journalism, and subsequently increased its political coverage by endorsing presidential candidates from then on. 

Bezos ordering the first non-endorsement since Watergate flies in the face of the very principles that The Post is built upon, and that sentiment was shared by many TikTok s. “US oligarchs are falling in line,” one person commented about Bezos, with another declaring that Bezos “needs to divest from The Post if he’s going to meddle in the press.” 

The broader reaction to the video has been surprise, since The Post’s TikTok team seems so willing to call out their boss. “Washington Post social media calling out Washington Post editorial was not on my election bingo card,” one wrote. 

Others added that it is “fascinating that THIS was allowed” but not The Post’s endorsement in the paper, or applauded the social media team for being “very transparent in all of their coverage who the endorsement was for.” It remains to be seen how The Post’s non-endorsement will affect the presidential race, but with just a few short days until the election, we will soon find out.

As The Washington Post suffers from over 250,000 people cancelling their subscriptions, not all signs are doom and gloom — one particular element in the paper’s favor will likely surprise many.

The Washington Post came under fire recently when they announced that they will not endorse a presidential candidate. This despite endorsing someone in every presidential election dating back to 1966, and only endorsing the Democratic nominee since 1992.

The seemingly popular response was for many subscribers — especially celebrities such as Stephen King and Mark Hamill — to announce that they are unsubscribing to the paper.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, bought The Washington Post in 2013. Despite its global readership, WaPo can be said to be something of a struggling paper. Last year it lost over $100 million resulting in 240 jobs being cut.

With such a divided political landscape, many people have expressed the frustration of news outlets taking sides. In the era of social media, it appears that disinformation is the norm and most of it is born out of sectarian favoritism.

It was on Friday Oct 25 when The Washington Post announced that it will not endorse a candidate. As of Tuesday Oct 29, WaPo had lost over 250,00 subscribers. However, this past weekend also saw an unusual 12% spike in s of the WaPo app in the United States, according to Sensor Tower, which tracks such data.

Initially reported by The Wrap, the percentage growth is based off of the previous weekend and suggests that while WaPo is losing subscribers, others are suddenly interested in the outlet for the same reason.

Furthermore, the app s have increased WaPo‘s app ranking amongst news apps in the U.S. On Thursday, the app was ranked 31st in the news category based on total number of s. As of Tuesday, it has jumped 11 spots to number 19.

Losing 250,000 subscribers is obviously damaging, at least in the short-term. WaPo has over 2.5 million subscribers, so this downturn s for losing 10% of them. Such a percentage is a lot, but it perhaps says something more when 90% of subscribers are not cancelling. They seem to be staying on board as Bezos sticks by his decision, which may have attracted new subscribers.

In an op-ed published on Monday in The Washington Post, Bezos explained his decision and even titled the piece, “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media.”

Bezos offers, “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

Despite the pushback, it makes one wonder if it really is controversial that a newspaper does not actually endorse a presidential candidate. Because The Washington Post has done so for decades, it seems controversial not to do so now, especially considering they could have made this decision a year ago, when no election was on the immediate horizon. However, assuming The Post stays true to Bezos’ description above, decades from now people may be used to them not endorsing a candidate, and it may prove controversial if they do, because it will go against his declaration of maintaining a nominally unbiased approach to politics.

Just like anything, editorial change just takes getting used to. A change was apparently needed at WaPo, at least according to its billionaire owner. Time will tell if this particular change in direction is the right one.