Fuckerberg should just send that Muskrat a poop emoji.
We should just start inciting for them to have a no-holds-bar, hell-in-a-cell, ladder, hardcore cage fight to the death. Then, when its over, we just don’t open the cage.
It’s ok, it’ll take Mark a few hours to unhinge his jaw and swallow Elon’s corpse whole. Then he’s gunna find a nice warm rock to lay on and digest.
If we don’t open the cage, how do we let the lions in?
They can stay in their habitats; no need to bring in wildlife.
If they’ve grown up in captivity, we can just do an intermission where someone throws a cardboard box in their enclosures and livestream it. It’ll be a hit!
I think we should start putting our money where our mouths are and start eating these people and their businesses
Putting our mouths where their money is? No, I don’t like that after all…
You’d probably catch a buzz at least if you could get over the stds
Can’t they just fist-fight each other and disappoint all of the viewers already?
Zucks hair looks like those tiktok vids of guys who’s baber fucked their haircut up.
How preposterous, Human Man Zuckerberg has a completely normal and decidedly regular keratin growth styling!
Is anyone surprised Musk is throwing another hissy fit?
Mastodon is goin end up with a Zuk
Lemmy is the coziest place in the internet right now, it’s great
Woah crazyyyy, free speech absolutist capitalist seems to hate competition. I wonder why!
Something something free market something something capitalism
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:
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.
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:
- Musk claimed to be working to protect free speech
- Musk’s actions are consistent with that goal
- If fighting Meta isn’t consistent with that goal, then why are we fighting Meta?
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.
Where is my cage fight?
let them eat each other out
Thanks for that horrific mental imagery.
With ai we can make it a real image
Stop
I’m confused, I thought Elon was trying to kill Twitter on purpose.
Good ol’ fash brain rot. The idols are simultaneously genius who master plan everything like 5D chess, and poor victims who are marginalized and constantly being bullied by the big bad woke.
Over the past year, Meta has hired dozens of Twitter employees
LOL, you mean all those employees you unceremoniously fired?
I’m sure twatter would have a no compete clause if they could. Maybe they can?
IANAL, but from what I understand, you can put anything you want in a contract, but it doesn’t mean it’s enforceable.
So the reason why companies put in non-compete clauses is mostly because people believe it, not because it’s really enforceable.
Now if former twitter employees were still getting severance from Twitter while working at Meta, that could be an issue. But generally speaking, if you’re not getting money (consideration) non-compete clauses don’t matter much.
In most regions, you’re right: you can put a noncompete in a contract, but enforcing it is another matter.
But noncompete clauses are explicitly illegal in California, where Twitter is based.
Noncompetes are basically unenforceable in California, you can make people sign them but they’re about as useful as if they were made out of toilet paper
But wouldn’t they be more useful, when made out of toilet paper?
Eh anyone can threaten to sue. Let me know if he finds a lawyer to file that thinks they have standing. I wonder if mom competes are valid if you get laid off. They are mostly not valid at all in California already.
a lawyer that thinks they have standing
And has confidence they’ll actually be paid.
i know it’s (probably) a typo, but the thought of “mom compete” clauses is cracking me up
Lol, I’m leaving it!
deleted by creator
Can we add lions?
Lmfao. Well, thanks for the free PR, I’m sure, because some poor secretary in his office knows there isn’t jack shit they can sue over.
Not that I’m ever going to pretend to like Meta, but having competition is supposed to be the definition of his precious free market. There’s even rules and everything about monopolies. Can’t take issue with that unless he’s ready to declare himself not a capitalist.
You don’t really need a good argument to file a lawsuit. And Musk seems petty and short-sighted enough to try it.
I’m not particularly fond of either, so I’m gonna make some popcorn and hope this blows up into the biggest shit storm possible.
let them fight
