or any other outlet that is presenting itself as a legitimate source of information, none of those obligations exist.

If this meme isn’t presenting that the quote is real, then why the fuck does it exist? I mean easily created and disseminated propaganda, obviously, but why should it exist?

If you take memes seriously as a source of information then you have issues.

I don’t – which should be obvious based on the fact I decided to source the quote. A frightening amount of people do, and that’s not limited to one political side. It’s 2026; we’ve been watching widespread media illiteracy and intellectual laziness destroy society for at least the last decade. You can’t just pretend you’re totally separate from that when you put media out into the world to be consumed by others.

And if you think basic sourcing is limited to “dissertations” or “school reports”, then writing school reports ironically taught you jack shit about why sourcing is important.

me too thanks

“So now” I’m going to? No; I already have been since the first comment.

I’m not going to sit down and explain why doing the bare minimum to source a quote you slap into a shitty, zero-effort meme is important when you’re releasing it out into an ocean of disinformation. That should be obvious, and if you take offense at that basic notion, then I’m just going to wallow in the clownery you started instead of wasting my time.

Are you sure it’s not a school report? I remember seeing plenty of essays in 5th grade misspelling the names of people they’re quoting like this.

How many troops were garrisoned in Barrack Obama when he said this?

Anyway, here’s a source for the quote since memes like this seem allergic to providing one.

Patient zero for cordyceps.

And just because OP feels like being an extra obnoxious little bitch (maybe intentionally inviting the Streisand effect? maybe not clever enough for that and just a dipshit?):

• Adam’s Bluesky

• Adam’s Tumblr

• Adam’s Substack

• Adam’s Patreon

(I’ve intentionally refrained from linking his TikTok, subreddit, Instagram, and Twitter for ethical concerns, but these exist if you can stomach those platforms.)

I’m saying that the logical end point of your idea is to either take this post down or remove Adam’s recognizable art style by running it through an AI. Because this post is an advertisement for anyone like me who recognizes his work.

But then I’m starting™ to think you don’t actually care; you just enjoy being a petty, insufferable bitch and don’t actually think Ellis’ credit at the bottom was harmful in any meaningful way.

It still wouldn’t make it consistent given you’re still advertising Adam in the post body. Anti-advertisement ethics aren’t the problem; your lens for evaluating them clearly is, and I’m not here to bodge together the garbage it’s feeding you.

I’m pointing out that your reductionist, black-and-white attitude is so convoluted and so unhelpful that it’s not even practicable for you to follow while complying with your belief that – to the author and the reader – it’s wrong to erase credit. And I can tell that’s your ethical stance because you re-added credit despite no rule and despite sponging up public ridicule like you practically enjoy it.

Edit: I will tell you just to drive this point even further that your post is an advertisement for Ellis’ work for anyone (like me) who recognizes his distinctive art style. So be sure to take it down or run it through a slop filter to genericize it.

This is an advertisement for Reddit, Inc. that most people won’t even realize they’re being served until they click the link. I’m not contending the link is a big deal in a vacuum; I’m contending you’ve actively substituted a completely benign – even quite helpful – advertisement with a slightly yet definitely worse advertisement and are claiming this is rooted in staunch anti-advertisement ethics.

Giving credit to the original author – which I understand you did in the post body – is advertising only in the most benign sense. It is not intrusive; it is not misleading; it is not manipulative; it is not malicious; it is not meaningfully harmful in any way.

I understand hating watermarks. But this isn’t someone slapping an iFunny or whatever bullshit brand onto an image completely unearned like a barnacle; the artist created a work for you to have for free (as in beer, and given memes, mostly as in freedom too), and the only thing they’re asking is that you preserve this small bit of credit. No, it’s not charity, but – speaking as someone who does volunteer work nobody will ever materially compensate me for – whoooo cares?

In an Internet awash with faceless, generic slop that nobody and everybody created at the same time, an artist’s watermark is one of the few ways people can attach an identity to their work. You definitely realize that removing credit from the image and transferring it to the post body isn’t identical – else you wouldn’t do it. Yet you’re still advertising for them, just in an intentionally kneecapped way that profits a known-malignant, multibillion-dollar corporation. What you’re doing as a substitute is somehow worse – transferring part of the advertisement to RDDT (136.18).

No rational way of looking at this makes sense.

Man, Adam Ellis’ work isn’t, like, mind-blowing to me, but I would’ve never believed how good he actually is if you told me before he escaped from BuzzFeed. This was my only glimmer of hope at the time:

Wow, ACE in SMB1 is already doing some crazy stuff.

Tried in 2021, but the corrupt admin cabal only deleted the observable Universe, undermining the community’s wishes. Their pro-Universe influence has gotten so bad in five years that, in 2026, there’s a discussion trying to get rid of the heat death of the Universe.

Maybe there is a Hell, OP. (Reminded me to wishlist it on GOG, though.)

I can’t tell if this legit or more Trump meddling

Over this piddly shit? Really, you actually can’t tell if this wasn’t Trump meddling? Nintendo got the patent last September under Trump’s acting USPTO director Coke Morgan Stewart. Two months later, the new director John A. Squires ordered it reviewed (bad patents fall through the cracks all the time; IP attorneys have described patent lawsuits as a “minefield” for both parties). Now, in a non-final decision for which Nintendo has two months to respond, it has been revoked. Nintendo didn’t even respond to the patent reexamination. I suggest reading the Games Fray article referenced by the linked content mill article poorly regurgitating it.

• Argumentative essay full of genericisms (edit: they don’t even say what the restrictions are despite calling them “these restrictions”, which is ludicrous for an essay of this length). Please read this blog post if you haven’t; the arguments are excruciatingly generic, and the wording is robotic and soulless.
• Brand-new account posting for a brand-new blog website (claiming authorship for it, so I believe it’s them because nobody’s ever heard of this site).
• No credited author.
• AI-generated thumbnails (I loved my Lakebird Buf computer in the 90s).
• Frequent blog posts from one person on an ostensibly unmonetized site with similar article formats:
  • The Long Road to CachyOS: Why I Finally Quit the Microsoft Ecosystem (29 March)
  • From Betamax to Bare Metal: The Origin of The Unknown Universe (30 March)
  • From WordPress Overwhelm to Publii Simplicity: Setting Up My Son’s First Blog (31 March)
  • This represents 3/5 of the articles so far.
• Uses em-dashes constantly through articles (fine, I use en-dashes a ton) but then, despite flawless grammar everywhere, suddenly switches from “blah — blah” in the articles to “blah—blah” here. Both are grammatically correct, but for someone to suddenly switch after sticking to one would be weird; it’s hard to explain to someone who doesn’t use them, but using the first near-exclusively shows a clear preference to the point the second would likely look and feel weird to write. If you write with perfect or effectively perfect grammar (even here, so it’s not just blog proofreading), you would notice.

Not related to the LLM thing: “I don’t use social media, as it conflicts with my FOSS and privacy principles.” but then linking a Mastodon account on the website, having a “Share this post” bar with Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp, and Bluesky, and posting this here is chef’s kiss.

The location of the base and prison for those curious why so many inmates were injured.

We shouldn’t let them control the vocabulary of our digital freedom.

You’re apparently taking an LLM controlling your vocabulary just fine, though, given both this comment and post were transparently written by one.