i created and abandoned a project gathering developers not to do anything. people odly understood :) there was going to be a yearly newsletter that was never send out and participants were free to do other equally unimportant things together using the name of the org (that was never picked) overal it was a hilarious experience. most of the work was in assuring people they would not be contacted for anything.
If you write a negative book about a collection of topics and make it diverse enough not to have to go in detail you can tailor it such that wikipedia becomes the perfect promotion vehicle. It has to be negative since removing positive material is much easier than either writing it or removing negative material. (There is often some sub-human narcissist volunteer willing to preserve negativity.)
Sober neutral voices get nothing done. You have to be extreamly biased
It's literally never not amazing to have crypto fans claim not being a crypto fan is a conflict of interest, BUT owning the crypto they're promoting isn't a COI.
"free energy device" also produces really crappy results compared to what it was.
It only seems like things argued not to exist may or must be scrubbed from seach results. Astrology wasn't scrubed nor was any religion. Everything has its history too!
I just searched for “free energy” with both google and bing and with both engines got a combination of the use in actual thermodynamics plus “omg free energy device exist coverup!” type results.
