Just in case that thief of a neighbour tries to scrum apples again.

The "McDonald's death squads" meme is a trope, but a funny one.

I also do find it somewhat amusing you seem to thing that, without a state, we will have a state @mikimof2 It's a non sequitur phrased as such, and that's why I question that inevitability. The state is an anachronistic anathema to me, and it is on a trajectory to become irrelevant due to being unable to adapt with sufficient speed.

A) and wages have risen by factors of God knows what over time. Also, some education is made freely available. Check out Royal institution on YouTube, fascinating science channel.

C) think about it. States being the de facto monopoly regulator are deferred to for the rules. If they don't make them *then the companies have no rules to follow*. If the state isn't there, the consumers make the rules, as they did with eBay. Everyone thought eBay would flop because seller a would provide buyer b with a crap product, which would be paid for with a bounced check.

D) and? Guess who lost the core people behind WhatsApp? Guess who has proper competing companies who found niches from their and Google's errors?

@mikimof2 there are such things as private courts and Polycentric law. Look up the brehon system.

Why do you need to tell society what to do? We're mostly all adults here in body at least.

Surely we can work that out without some guy in a throne ordering you about?

Is the worry that bad people exist, Ergo you need people to stop the bad people making life worse?

Bingo. All states are companies, they just work by different rules.

@mikimof2 they really are, but you just don't see it yet. That's fine, but the markets don't treat them as if they are anything but a form of regional monopoly.

As to the "bad people exist ergo state must too" argument there are two relevant quotes I'll start with. The first is plato: *Good people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly, and bad people will find a way around laws*.

The second I know well but can never remember the source. I think his name was LeFareve : *if people are inherently good, you don't need a state. If people are inherently ambivalent or bad, you dare not have one*.

Your argument, in order to work with consistency, implies that government, a group of people, must prevent bad people from acting badly. But what stops bad people from running the system itself? You've created a focal point of control by centralising the power in the state. Power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely, so why would creating a means to game all other power sources reduce the risks caused by bad people.

Np. Happy to pick it up again later just ping me.

One last thing for you to consider for tomorrow though. i have to disagree thst customers are actively involved with the regulating of anything much beyond online marketplaces, travel locations, and restaurants. They've deferred that responsibility and the associated ownership of it to the state. That is what needs to change first and foremost in education for me. That and how we consider security too.

We need to learn that, with ownership comes responsibility, and vice versa. Ownership & responsibility is something we should want to have for ourselves, not shun in favour of someone else taking that mantle up for you. And if we can't take that responsibility on, then we should have a proper choice on who we give it to, not a glorified popularity contest where a bandwagon fallacy picks the victor.

We also need to learn that security is everyone's job if you want it done right. You have to be willing to defend yourself, and anyone else who is willing to defend you. Get those two concepts instilled culturally, add with what we have as tech, and watch that culture run rings around the world as the most efficient solution.

All I want is full responsibility for myself, and whomever I choose to accept some responsibility for. I do not want to have to accept responsibility for the actions of any government, which logically I must do if I consider myself a citizen of it. I do not consent to own that level of catastrophic social and fiscal debt to anyone, but it is forced upon me by everyone.

@ETBrooD states, to me, are regionalised monopoly providers of a number of services, but at minimum they are a monopoly for the usage of permissible force & judgement.

@TEABAG!!! fb is accountable to us law first, and any other legal system second. Its also I believe the subject of an antitrust investigation there, as is Google. Fb is on borrowed time unless they change.

People have a lot more power over the market than they think, but unfortunately they rarely use it to its full extent.

@ETBrooD that defintion of a state has no bearing on voluntaryism save being in violation of it. Voluntaryism claims the only permissible actions are voluntary. Tell me, do you voluntarily support every action your government takes on your behalf? If they do something you don't like or give you duff products, can you demand your money back? If you don't use a service, can you avoid paying for it?

You are beholden to the choices you make. If you choose to give up responsibility to another, and they fuck up, it's still on you too for giving them trust. With a state, however, key questions arise on where one's own responsibility ends and the state's begins. To me, If you can choose to support the system itself by participating in it via the vote, you are also responsible when that system starts failing you and others around you. After all, what right do you have to force someone else to act on your behalf? If no one person has that right inherently, how does the state magic it into existence?

i have no problem with companies *so long as they are voluntary*, but I will always have problems with monopoly providers claiming they are the only option in an area. Me being *born somewhere* has no bearing on whether or not I consent to buy from a provider, yet the state presumes it does just by the virtue of its conceptual existence.

@TEABAG!!! & @ETBrooD

So technically a terms of service (ToS) is still legally binding, and binding under the concept of common law (which is technically more fundamental than any politically determined laws, and is still used in the UK and other areas of the west). Common law treats even verbal agreements and promises as binding. This is why you can sue people for failing to uphold their own terms, and why gabbard is doing so to Google.

Just because something that regulates interactions between consumer and company isn't state driven, or just because a court doesn't have the authority to put you in prison, does not mean a) it isn't part of law, or b) isn't a form of limited legislation. If that was true, then by that logic, anything crime which is punishable by a fine and only a fine isn't a law either, public or private. Law is simply that which you can be held to account against, and it can be public or private in form.

Right now the big problem at its core with the tech giants isn't m&a activity. Its the premise that the data & the content you provide them belongs to them explicitly. It's your data first, they just host it. It is like your landlord claiming by living in his property he gets all your stuff too. It's precisely like that when you consider what ejection from the platform means.

All your content is destroyed if a full wipe happens. That's like a landlord evicting you and burning all your stuff because it's there.

@TEABAG!!! not saying the virtual evictions should be allowed, and certainly not in the way it is done currently. To me, the data landlord (owner of the server) in this case doesn't have full property rights over the created content, but *legally*, right now they do. That needs to change. However, It might be oversimplistic to blame UK or EU laws for this shift, its just a bit of serendipity.

@ETBrooD im not sure where you are from, but contracts of all kinds in the west are *legally binding*, and rarely use public courts to resolve any disputes within them. In the UK, even a verbal contract is considered binding (provided you admit to having made a verbal agreement). That makes such things a form of law, to whit contract law.

Legislation only means "laws, considered collectively", and that must also include contract law at an individual level.

If you are looking at it from a state perspective, Google doesn't create legislation the way they do, but from a consumer or individual perspective, it does create legislation. It regulates your use of their platform. The government does not.

We need to define property rights for virtual property. It may just be made of ones and zeros in the end, but it's still more than empty space or just an idea.

Some friends of mine & I have been working on the line in the sand for virtual property concepts, one that goes beyond the nonsense of IP law today, and might actually work. Provided you create it and encrypt it in some way, you own it. The problem is getting that concept in some way codified to establish those property rights for what we make on social platforms.

Just because you own the block of space on a server doesn't mean you own what's inside that block, unless you either buy the rights to it, fill it yourself, or they are gifted somehow to you. Right now, it's pretty much the latter for most of these platforms. Minds, BitChute, MeWe, dissenter/ gab and mastadon have each got the capacity to be the next step in the process of getting data seen as being more than just ephemeral.

We might have to wait for quantum encryption to make it better than a paper wall between us and the service providers (and barely better between us and hackers), but at the end of the day its all about who has the rights to what part of the property in play. The service provider has right to his space, but not your contents. You have rights to your contents, but not his space.

@ETBrooD you didn't read my point fully, and you still presume legislation only covers publicly determined law. That is fine if you want to believe companies have no say in how to treat you, but they do. They, like all companies, create legislation over both employees and consumers *all the time* which regulate your behaviour without the state setting how that should be donr. The only real difference is scale - it only can impact your interactions with that company. So, just as your interactions in the USA are not going to get you arrested for breaking a different nation's law, an activity on Google getting you taken off youtube won't get you imprisoned unless it also breaches state level laws, not just ToS.

You claiming the argument that private level legislation under contract isn't legislation because "that's rediculous" isn't an argument mate. It's appealing to the stone. Contracts getting violated still can get you penalised by a court, albeit a private one. I see no real differences here, except scale. If you want to claim law only applies at scale, then you have ignored the concept of contract law entirely. That's on you, not teabag, and given that specific set of laws is critical to a functionial capitalist market, i see no reason to treat contracts as separate from legislation.

@Drywa11 i believe he meant the English philosophy is immune to nazism. The people themselves, however, I'd say are just as vulnerable to it, as you can always promote the German philosophy over the English one.

Eeeh no. It has a monopoly on the authorised use of force. It tries to make itself the monopoly on legislation too, but private courts also exist, and "common law" also exists. And no, companies create legislation, and governments allow it, *because no one outside the company or its direct consumers* is affected. Google cant claim it owns you, but it can claim ownership of how you behave on its properties. So don't claim companies cannot legally create legislation to govern how you act there, because *that's what a contract is*.

So ad hominem now? I gave you the precise defintion of what legislation is, and your ignorance of reality isn't due to my lack of education @ETBrooD

So ignore public courts exist?

And all claims are handled by juries? No. Try again mate.

Are all cases of law resolved by a jury?

Oh sorry

I thought you meant a member of a jury not a jurisprudence scholar

Lmao! So your arguments are contracts are not legally binding why?

That's teabags point and mine mate

Your argument isn't paying attention at all to ours. Contract law is legislation #changemymind

@ETBrooD im sorry if you are too stupid or socialist to understand contracts are legally binding

Oh and FYI, contracts can supercede laws, so when push comes to shove, you're still wrong lol

In fact default rules are often overruled by contracts. So.... Yeah.... And I'm the ignorant one.

Listen @ETBrooD ,you don't win an argument or change anyone's minds by repeating exactly the same things over and over, calling them idiots or ignorant, and then walking away.

If you want to actually learn other perspectives on the matter, you need patience. Or you can be a toddler in a grown man's body, but that choice is up to you not me.

Understand that, when taken collectively, contracts act as a form of LAW *de facto*, and are considered *de jure*to be valid by states when they adhere to the common law or local laws. Ergo, the claim that "no government allows companies to create legislation" isn't strictly true. Governments won't allow a company to legislate over the government, but governments are happy to let companies govern you, the individual, and your behaviour when you use their platform, so long as it adheres to what the state also requires.

You are arguing from the perspective of a government, not the perspective of the everyday citizen. Until you accept that alternative perspective actually exists and is just as valid (if not more so) you'll keep remaining ignorant of what people are trying to tell you (probably bevause you don't want to accept it, but that ain't my problem mate).

Finally, for you to claim companies don't create laws also ignores entirely the concept of *lobbying*, which is the driving force behind all regulation changes in the USA.

Then respond to my critique of your claims.

How childish.

Fine, mute me @ETBrooD. I'd rather call you on it and make you act and demonstrate you making rules and laws over who can speak to you, instead of a state. Creating a form of legislation enforced by a platforms functions.

@Αγωνιζῆς the term I think is private arbitration. An agreed arbiter is appointed within the contract itself. it's similar to a civil court dispute in its processes (claimant vs defender, being decided over by a third party), and can even make somewhat good TV (as demonstrated by the likes of judge Judy, judge Rinder, etc).

They don't deal with "criminal law", just civil disputes within contracts. However they also have a lot of advantages: faster & cheaper than the public system of courts, and more likely to be enforced in any jurisdiction than just a court ruling (partly because its contractually set).

Of course there are some flipsides to this: it requires you to review all your contracts before signing (which tbf you should do anyway), some places have less enforcement options than court judgements, and it is a lot harder to find a means of appealling the rulings.

Arbitration even stopped America going to war with England arguably. Twice. Once in 1795 and the other not long after the American civil war (England backed the confederacy).

Tbh arbitration was being advocated as the best alternative to a war in the early 20th century. President Taft was really onto something there. Shame he didn't really understand the game of politics.

Ugh. Yeah, or 'police action', which is now passe but was big in the cold War.

But arbitration done privately is still a part of the law, not apart from it. I'm not sure how anyone could see it otherwise unless they are unaware of it.

Self fulfilled prophecy more like....

Or did we forget that vegan chick who attacked the youtube complex?

@Kaladin agorism is probably about the only way out of the madness at this rate

I'm curious on the view of just cleansing California with a tungsten rod from space. No more silicon Valley, but greatly reduce risks of plague outbreak as the benefits. Thoughts?

>democracy works
>looks at brexit

You wann run that past me again, @Muten?

Hell I can't tell the difference between y'all. Didn't expect an army of deaf discord mutes...

His grammar is atrocious, but he's at least intelligible to me.

That's more than can be said for scousers for me usually.

@Muten reminded me of rimmer from red dwarf that gem

@2K you have no idea how much I hate you for making me view such autism.

@Muten I'm living in England, where the autism has broken the fucking warp in parliament itself. I don't need to see even more of it in my chat feeds lol

You only wish I was mate because you ain't gotten any 😏

I'm gonna say no, but Wtf is a propitiation

Lmao never do that

Trust a computer.... OK...

So much <:salt:501105964758466586>

Over SwiftKey too....

No there's good reasons to post it mate when you act like a mine for it lol

I don't trust ac, but I do have fat thumbs...

Lmao that is I think the first time anyone called me fat for having big thumbs on a mobile pad lol

Type of guitar I think isn't it @Lios ?

Ugh. Bk is fowl...

A thought virus is what I call it @MS

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/supreme-court-news-live-today-boris-johnson-brexit-ruling-parliament-prorogue-latest-corbyn-a9117696.html%3famp

Game on! Corbyn has decided to play his hand with the public!

Breaking: corbyn is pushing for an election again.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/supreme-court-news-live-today-boris-johnson-brexit-ruling-parliament-prorogue-latest-corbyn-a9117696.html%3famp

According to headline int he independent.

Praying hes overplayed his hand finally.

I think he feels he has the ace hes been waiting for, and doesnt realise its actually a 2

Have yall seen the "maths ethinc studies" akkad daily vid? Anyone else think that truly is the peak of lunacy, claiming mathematics is inherently white supremacy and oppressive to minorities? Because i am really, *really* struggling to think of something more *derp* than this....

Oh god no, bad maths does not equal an argument mate. You cannot use index metrics the way racial studies of iq try to use them. Well, not and have any relevance, statstically speaking....

https://freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/323-students-forced-to-apologize-for-being-white-christian?fbclid=IwAR200ny3O7ktNXuY8otT4BxeyUyqU0BgORMfGSz-fMUlyiMFHNkgob1pzMg

I can see this ending very badly....