While I personally don’t, the difference between this and that is that most people here, together as a community, have decided, again together, that they don’t want to federate with Meta apps because of a long history of privacy and other abuses.
That’s not the same thing as another billionaire pissed off because they are doing exactly what capitalism is “supposed to do”
Oh boy, everyone should tell those Indian slaves in Dubai. They can’t hold you prisoner guys, it’s not valid if it’s not voluntary, so you can just go home. The capitalists say it’s okay…wait, what? Oh! it was the capitalists who put them there.
An innocent person who commits a crime is no longer an innocent person.
A vegetarian who starts eating meat is no longer a vegetarian.
A capitalist who enslaves someone is no longer a capitalist.
I’m so sorry you have trouble with this basic definition, but capitalism is a free market system. Slaves are not free, and that economic relationship is not a free market relationship.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.
Voluntary exchange is a fundamental assumption in classical economics and neoclassical economics which forms the basis of contemporary mainstream economics.[1] That is, when neoclassical economists theorize about the world, they assume voluntary exchange is taking place. Building on this assumption, neoclassical economics goes on to conclude a variety of important results such as that market activity is efficient, that free trade has net positive effects and that markets in which economic agents participate voluntarily make them better off. Notably, neoclassical economists—baseding the assumption of voluntary exchange—deny the Marxist definition of the exploitation of labour as a possibility within neoclassically defined capitalism.
So in an neoclassic definition that doesn’t reflect real world conditions?
A definition cannot he said to match or to not match real world conditions.
Like if I define a square as a quadrilateral with equal sides, that’s independent (orthogonal, even, pun intended) of whether any quadrilaterals with equal sides are around.
I don’t think it makes any sense to talk about whether a definition reflects reality. That’s not really what a definition is. They can’t be true or untrue.
Statements are true or untrue, but for a definition the concept of truth or falsity doesn’t make sense.
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.
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.
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.
We’re treating Meta as a threat to our community too.
While I personally don’t, the difference between this and that is that most people here, together as a community, have decided, again together, that they don’t want to federate with Meta apps because of a long history of privacy and other abuses.
That’s not the same thing as another billionaire pissed off because they are doing exactly what capitalism is “supposed to do”
Do better or die is the whole philosophy no?
The whole philosophy of capitalism is “Economic interaction must be voluntary to be valid.
Oh boy, everyone should tell those Indian slaves in Dubai. They can’t hold you prisoner guys, it’s not valid if it’s not voluntary, so you can just go home. The capitalists say it’s okay…wait, what? Oh! it was the capitalists who put them there.
Nope sorry. Capitalism is defined by voluntary cooperation. Slavery’s not capitalism.
You should tell capitalists, it seems like they didn’t get the memo.
An innocent person who commits a crime is no longer an innocent person.
A vegetarian who starts eating meat is no longer a vegetarian.
A capitalist who enslaves someone is no longer a capitalist.
I’m so sorry you have trouble with this basic definition, but capitalism is a free market system. Slaves are not free, and that economic relationship is not a free market relationship.
You got a source on this definition? Because it sure sounds like bullshit
From wikipedia:
Voluntary exchange is a fundamental assumption in classical economics and neoclassical economics which forms the basis of contemporary mainstream economics.[1] That is, when neoclassical economists theorize about the world, they assume voluntary exchange is taking place. Building on this assumption, neoclassical economics goes on to conclude a variety of important results such as that market activity is efficient, that free trade has net positive effects and that markets in which economic agents participate voluntarily make them better off. Notably, neoclassical economists—baseding the assumption of voluntary exchange—deny the Marxist definition of the exploitation of labour as a possibility within neoclassically defined capitalism.
So in an neoclassic definition that doesn’t reflect real world conditions?
A definition cannot he said to match or to not match real world conditions.
Like if I define a square as a quadrilateral with equal sides, that’s independent (orthogonal, even, pun intended) of whether any quadrilaterals with equal sides are around.
I don’t think it makes any sense to talk about whether a definition reflects reality. That’s not really what a definition is. They can’t be true or untrue.
Statements are true or untrue, but for a definition the concept of truth or falsity doesn’t make sense.
Those things don’t sound mutually exclusive
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”?
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.
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.