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.
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.
to stir up some drama (I assume)
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.
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.
fair enough.
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 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.
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.