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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Well what I said was:
deleted by creator
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”?
deleted by creator
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.