Or, Muskās actions could be in line with protecting free speech. I mean, thatās the fear we have of Meta here: that it will destroy this space and silence voices.
So if (a) Musk claims heās protecting free speech, and then (b) takes actions consistent with that view, then thereās no opening to make an argument of the form āMust claims X but does Yā, when Y could be interpreted as a manifestation of goal X.
Musk, who has regularly demonstrated he is not a āfree speech absolutistā, is protecting free speech? K
Well what I said was:
- Musk claimed to be working to protect free speech
- Muskās actions are consistent with that goal
- If fighting Meta isnāt consistent with that goal, then why are we fighting Meta?
No they arenāt? Heās trying to save himself from losing billions more dollars. It has nothing to do with free speech. As the other poster stated, itās about perceived IP theft.
Assuming āweā is lemmy, Musks motivation is complete different, aka money. You restating the point you tried to make doesnāt give it any more credence.
Yeah I donāt think he has a case either. Iām 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.
