THEREโS A WAR GOING ON OVER KAMALA HARRISโS WIKIPEDIA PAGE, WITH UNFLATTERING ELEMENTS VANISHING
In recent presidential cycles, the velocity of edits made to a Wikipedia page have correlated with the choice of vice presidential running mate.
This is really an observation in the form of a question as I at least sympathize (sort of) with what Weird Al here is saying: It was ruled that corporations are persons with first amendment rights in Citizens United v FEC. This decision was largely celebrated by conservatives if you recall. If your personal property was being used to convey messages about someone you loathe who is running for office, why could you not use that property in such a way as to adversely affect that person's campaign as an expression of free speech on your part? Why is it okay for Comcast to spend millions or billions of dollars promoting or smearing candidates via ads but they cant do essentially the same thing with their physical property?