Here's a guy who rigged a theremin and a hurdy gurdy up to Singer sewing machine and performs spectacular covers on it https://www.tiktok.com/@singersoundsystem/video/751772710192...
And here's someone living my dream, he moved to the Scottish Highlands to start a workshop creating mechanical sculptures inspired by my childhood heroes the Cabaret Mechanical Theater and he just made a piece for them! https://www.tiktok.com/@mechanicalcreations/video/7598189362...
I don't want "weird and fun" anymore, and neither does everyone else who avoids TikTok.
This is classic equivocation fallacy.
What are the multiple meanings to the same phrase? Presumably "weird and fun" is what you're calling out? But to me their post looks like it's using the exact same meaning both times.
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.
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. But that's not the equivocation fallacy you're accusing them of.
It's not very effective at doing anything but making lowbrow content slightly more appealing.