Steel manning really only works if you can assume the other person continues to argue in good faith. If the other person keeps moving the goalposts and demanding you construct a strong argument for their behavior they're just being abusive and I would suggest the best course of action is to leave.
Steelmanning requires the person you're talking to to be arguing in good faith, not the actual subjects of the narrative being steelmanned. The whole point of steelmanning is to grant those subjects good faith even if you personally think it's unwise, because the person you're talking to may disagree...
In the context of moving the goalposts, you are asking other commenters to justify another person's actions that are increasingly at odds with their words.
I personally think that the narrative you are interrogating is weak, even a straw man version of the people you think you're arguing with. It seems clear to me that Elon has long operated on personal grievance with respect to Twitter, and that "free speech" is just the veneer he puts on because it works.
>you are asking other commenters to justify another person's actions that are increasingly at odds with their words.
Yes, that's what steelmanning is. If you don't care to do it, you're free not to respond to a request for a steelmanned arugment. Explaining your principled refusal to steelman doesn't add much to the discussion.
