As if things couldn’t get any more ridiculous, progressives have made the ongoing saga between Twitter CEO Elon Musk and members of the activist media even more absurd. After Musk suspended the Twitter accounts of various alleged journalists, the left fell into their typical hysterics and developed a newfound appreciation for free speech.

Even after Musk restored their accounts, the frantic tantrums did not end. These individuals continued to play the victim and have even tried to paint this as some type of momentous event in the history of social media. These people went so far as to create a Wikipedia page to document the entire affair as if it truly warrants such an entry. But even better, these intrepid defenders of free speech even came up with a name for the story: The Thursday Night Massacre.

Get it? Because Musk suspended the alleged journalists on a Thursday, and that is somehow akin to a digital massacre–or something.

The individuals who created the page complained that media activists “were not initially provided specific reasons for the ban,” and that some of them “said they had not violated the rule” against sharing private location information.

Is it not interesting that these people engage in this type of behavior, while still thinking they are fooling the nation into believing they are not mindless, far-leftist hacks? At this point, it is about as obvious as it gets. Nevertheless, they persist.

As you might imagine, the move was met with nothing but mockery from sane folks on Twitter. Here are a few examples:

There is a 3,000 word Wikipedia page titled "Thursday Night Massacre" because a bunch of people got suspended from Twitter for 18 hours. https://t.co/QBKMrdA82b

— Noam Blum (@neontaster) December 17, 2022

Wikipedia:
7 accounts getting suspended– "massacre"
14,000 arrests, 19 dead, biggest national guard deployment ever– "protests" https://t.co/XJWuh8nvqz pic.twitter.com/oZ9ohqTqy6

— Michael Malice (@michaelmalice) December 17, 2022

talk page for "thursday night massacre" on wikipedia is amusingly people debating whether the page is notable enough to stay or whether it should be removed; a somewhat messy but fair minded content moderation discussion.

— Noah Berlatsky (@nberlat) December 17, 2022

Even Musk himself chimed in, noting the utter hilarity of it all. “A two day suspension of maybe 7 accounts for doxxing got an actual Wikipedia page!? Wikipedia is controlled by the MSM journalists. Can’t trust that site anymore,” he tweeted.

A two day suspension of maybe 7 accounts for doxxing got an actual Wikipedia page!? Wikipedia is controlled by the MSM journalists. Can’t trust that site anymore.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2022

In a sign that sanity might still exist on the internet, the Wikipedia entry does note that the “article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy.”

There is also a link to a discussion page where users are debating whether the page should remain or be deleted. One user noted that “[t]he responses from other commentators section is heavily weighted in favor of those who were suspended,” and that “[n]o comments supportive of the doxxing suspensions are listed.”

Another wrote:

There was wrong doing. [sic] They listed coordinates and tracked down the son of Elon. The fact that the initial person who started this hacked a system to get his plane data that wasn’t public knowledge is proof enough. Those who shared that and dared Elon deserve to be banned. They are lucky it’s only a suspension.

However, another user argued in favor of the entry, insisting that this situation “is about more than just some random account suspensions,” and that it “involves free speech issues, Elon Musks’ relationship to journalists and the political system, social media moderation ethics, etc.”

The individual argued that the story is “[i]mportant enough to keep for now and wait and see how the story evolves.”

Nevertheless, being that Wikipedia’s users are mostly left-leaning, it seems more probable that the article will remain and will serve as a monument to the plight of whiny-a**ed media activists who only pretend to care about free speech when it affects those who share their politics. But let’s focus on the positive: at least it will give us yet another reason to laugh at these people, right?