• ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • WraithGear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I thought the law suit was centered around the fact that Twitter shit canned a bunch of programmers, and meta picked them up to make threads. So elon is claiming intellectual property theft.

        At no point did they mention that they were trying to save free speech. That wouldn’t make sense.

        I would hope elon loses this suit. You can’t force an employee you fired into a non disclosure agreement and then just not pay them wile locking them out of their field of work for 10 years.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.