You’re making a false equivalence. Musk is scared about losing more of his money. People here seemingly don’t like Meta and don’t want it to infest lemmy. Those aren’t even close to being the same.
Or, Musk’s actions could be in line with protecting free speech. I mean, that’s the fear we have of Meta here: that it will destroy this space and silence voices.
So if (a) Musk claims he’s protecting free speech, and then (b) takes actions consistent with that view, then there’s no opening to make an argument of the form “Must claims X but does Y”, when Y could be interpreted as a manifestation of goal X.
No they aren’t? He’s trying to save himself from losing billions more dollars. It has nothing to do with free speech. As the other poster stated, it’s about perceived IP theft.
Assuming ‘we’ is lemmy, Musks motivation is complete different, aka money. You restating the point you tried to make doesn’t give it any more credence.
Premise 1: Fighting the enemy of a person, group, or thing can be a way of protecting that person, group, or thing.
Premise 2: Meta is an enemy of free speech.
Conclusion 1: Fighting Meta can be a way to protect free speech.
( P1 + P2 => C1 )
Premise 3: When a specific action can be used as a way of creating a specific outcome, we can say that that action is consistent with having the goal of creating that outcome.
Conclusion 2: Fighting Meta is consistent with having the goal of protecting free speech.
( C1 + P3 => C2 )
Premise 4: Initiating a lawsuit against X is a way of fighting X.
Conclusion 3: Anyone engaged in a lawsuit with Meta is undertaking actions consistent with having the goal o protecting free speech.
( C2 + P4 => C3 )
Premise 5: Elon Musk is engaged in a lawsuit with Meta.
Conclusion 4: Elon Musk is behaving in a way consistent with having the goal of protecting free speech.
( C3 + P5 => C4 )
QED
Now, I you can take this argument down by knocking out any of the premises. It relies on all five premises. You can also disagree with the logical conclusions.
I would be curious to know what you think is the weakest of those premises.
Yeah I don’t think he has a case either. I’m talking about the perceived motivations when his actions are consistent with his stated motivations (for running twitter, the ones mentioned in the comment thread I responded to), as evidenced by our own shared pairing of stated motivations and actions.
You don’t see the conflict?
Here it’s a case of hypocrisy, as it’s a conflict between berating someone else for some behavior, and engaging in it ourselves.
You’re making a false equivalence. Musk is scared about losing more of his money. People here seemingly don’t like Meta and don’t want it to infest lemmy. Those aren’t even close to being the same.
Or, Musk’s actions could be in line with protecting free speech. I mean, that’s the fear we have of Meta here: that it will destroy this space and silence voices.
So if (a) Musk claims he’s protecting free speech, and then (b) takes actions consistent with that view, then there’s no opening to make an argument of the form “Must claims X but does Y”, when Y could be interpreted as a manifestation of goal X.
Musk, who has regularly demonstrated he is not a ‘free speech absolutist’, is protecting free speech? K
Well what I said was:
No they aren’t? He’s trying to save himself from losing billions more dollars. It has nothing to do with free speech. As the other poster stated, it’s about perceived IP theft.
Assuming ‘we’ is lemmy, Musks motivation is complete different, aka money. You restating the point you tried to make doesn’t give it any more credence.
Did you notice the phrase “is consistent with”?
How do you suppose that differs in meaning from a phrase like “allows us to conclude that”?
But his actions aren’t consistent with anything having to do with protecting freedom of speech. So you saying “is consistent with” is irrelevant.
Premise 1: Fighting the enemy of a person, group, or thing can be a way of protecting that person, group, or thing.
Premise 2: Meta is an enemy of free speech.
Conclusion 1: Fighting Meta can be a way to protect free speech. ( P1 + P2 => C1 )
Premise 3: When a specific action can be used as a way of creating a specific outcome, we can say that that action is consistent with having the goal of creating that outcome.
Conclusion 2: Fighting Meta is consistent with having the goal of protecting free speech. ( C1 + P3 => C2 )
Premise 4: Initiating a lawsuit against X is a way of fighting X.
Conclusion 3: Anyone engaged in a lawsuit with Meta is undertaking actions consistent with having the goal o protecting free speech. ( C2 + P4 => C3 )
Premise 5: Elon Musk is engaged in a lawsuit with Meta.
Conclusion 4: Elon Musk is behaving in a way consistent with having the goal of protecting free speech. ( C3 + P5 => C4 )
QED
Now, I you can take this argument down by knocking out any of the premises. It relies on all five premises. You can also disagree with the logical conclusions.
I would be curious to know what you think is the weakest of those premises.
Removed by mod
Yeah I don’t think he has a case either. I’m talking about the perceived motivations when his actions are consistent with his stated motivations (for running twitter, the ones mentioned in the comment thread I responded to), as evidenced by our own shared pairing of stated motivations and actions.