Comment by antonvs
12 days ago
> Presumably "weird and fun"
Yes, you figured it out, so apparently I didn't need an "actual explanation".
> looks like it's using the exact same meaning both times.
That's a fascinating equivalence operator you're using.
Guys it's not that serious
Could you do me a favor and paraphrase the two meanings of "weird and fun" you see?
Because we can rewrite the second sentence with a pronoun so you're only parsing "weird and fun" once: "It's all on tiktok!" or to get over the top pedantic in removing any possibility of a double meaning: "The exact thing they say is lacking in quantity is still there on tiktok in full quantity."
Those both sound like basically the same as the original to me and they clearly don't have an equivocation fallacy on the phrase "weird and fun".
You could complain that putting so much on tiktok rather than other sites ruins the distribution, or something like that. Or you could say they're wrong and there is less. But that's not the equivocation fallacy you're accusing them of.