4 ms·

The topic of this entire HN discussion thread is, indeed, nominally about the legal minutia. But the topic of the super comment we're both arguing in reply to

The topic of this entire HN discussion thread is, indeed, nominally about the legal minutia. But the topic of the super comment we're both arguing in reply to is "Who could possibly be on the side of Musk", i.e. a question about the relative sympathy both sides of the legal dispute evoke. My reply to that, the one this entire sub-thread is a reply to, is that Musk evokes greater sympathy, because of how twatter abuses their power and position as a social media monopoly and how much this harms online conversations. So, in this particular scope, you're the one who is actually off-topic, my reply was about who I'm more sympathetic to. >Do you have something relevant (not necessarily correct, but at least __relevant__) to the stated topic at hand Do you mean the bot issue ? it's probably bullshit. Every social media cesspool is full of bots, some more, some less. There is no reason to think twatter is any better or worse on that particular front. It's probably instagram who's the filthiest bot playground. I think its pretty obvious that Musk will try to milk every single point, fair or not, to improve his position in the court. Bullshit or not, it ties up important resources out of twatter's legal team and gives legitimacy to his claims (because if you spend several lawyers trying to debunk bullshit, then you at least take that bullshit seriously, which gives legitimacy to the bullshit). So I don't understand what to discuss, Musk bullshitted ? no shit, he's billions-of-dollars committed to the case now, off course he's going to bullshit and do whatever it takes to win. What's interesting or novel about that ?

dragontamer 4y ago
So are you on Elon Musk's side on this case, and what evidence points you on Musk's side? It's fine to have your own personal bias here. We all do. But at a minimum, discussing why we hold those views is beneficial for both of us. If you are just anti-twitter then that's good that you are admitting that. It at least gives me something to work with from a discussion point of view. But ideally, you should be discussing why Twitters argument here is wrong and why you think they'd lose this court battle.
- Banana699 4y ago
  >So are you on Elon Musk's side on this case, and what evidence points you on Musk's side? That would imply I want him to win, when in reality I just want twitter to lose. I don't particularly care what happens to Musk, I just want him to deal maximum damage to twitter, at whatever cost to him it takes. >It's fine to have your own personal bias here. We all do. But at a minimum, discussing why we hold those views is beneficial for both of us. I did say why I hate twitter and want them to lose this case: they are a bunch dumb anti-free-speechers who coddle certain groups and ban others arbitarily, and on top of that their terrible poisonous platform is not conducive to intelligent speech. >why Twitters argument here is wrong and why you think they'd lose this court battle. I don't have a particulary strong expectation that they will lose, indeed if anything their legal position is stronger than Musk, as the experts are fond of saying. My hope is that they will underestimate Musk and do something dumb that will hurt their position and force a favorable concession that will hurt them more. Even if they win, that might anger or humiliate Musk so much that he destroys twitter out of anger, this is still fine by me.

dragontamer 4y ago

So are you on Elon Musk's side on this case, and what evidence points you on Musk's side? It's fine to have your own personal bias here. We all do. But at a minimum, discussing why we hold those views is beneficial for both of us. If you are just anti-twitter then that's good that you are admitting that. It at least gives me something to work with from a discussion point of view. But ideally, you should be discussing why Twitters argument here is wrong and why you think they'd lose this court battle.

Banana699 4y ago
>So are you on Elon Musk's side on this case, and what evidence points you on Musk's side? That would imply I want him to win, when in reality I just want twitter to lose. I don't particularly care what happens to Musk, I just want him to deal maximum damage to twitter, at whatever cost to him it takes. >It's fine to have your own personal bias here. We all do. But at a minimum, discussing why we hold those views is beneficial for both of us. I did say why I hate twitter and want them to lose this case: they are a bunch dumb anti-free-speechers who coddle certain groups and ban others arbitarily, and on top of that their terrible poisonous platform is not conducive to intelligent speech. >why Twitters argument here is wrong and why you think they'd lose this court battle. I don't have a particulary strong expectation that they will lose, indeed if anything their legal position is stronger than Musk, as the experts are fond of saying. My hope is that they will underestimate Musk and do something dumb that will hurt their position and force a favorable concession that will hurt them more. Even if they win, that might anger or humiliate Musk so much that he destroys twitter out of anger, this is still fine by me.