Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 477129976362303499
When I got an envelope telling me how I could sign up for the union at my work and read the cost I threw it in the trash.
well you would have to define what a union is.
if a group of people team up in a company, is that not a union? You have to be very careful to define what and what is not considered a union. Any group of people usually form a structure of leadership.
it is not
teaming up for the sake of negotiation is collective bargaining
Union is an organization
and when is the line crossed?
when the group teaming up gives itself a name?
Have administration and charge members
what if they didn't charge members, but accepted donations?
In that case would depend but leans away from being a typical Union
this is why i say you have to be careful what is and is not considered a union
Course, if it is something that accepts donations, sounds like it is highly susceptible to corruption
Isnt a Union just like an Alliance?
a group formed by individual units working towards a common goal?
any power structure is highly susceptible to corruption.
hence why people should be allowed to leave, and not forced to pay things if not involved.
in a workers Union, the goal is for fair treatment etc
European union has a goal of working together to improve overal status
etc?
Generally when people talk about unions they are talking about the ones with administrations and cost of admission
workers unions that is
and that is why they currently suck, at least in america.
I'm talking about American
so, if you define a union as a collective of workers banding together in a group that expands outside any specific company, in an effort to remain connected and informed so they are not taken advantage of by their employer, then i say there can be times when they are necessary, but they are not always necessary.
however, if you are talking about what is especially legal mafia's, which is what current unions in the US are like, i agree they are not necessary.
yes I am talking about the legal mafias
yes, i agree. hence why i said they have too much power
The first one I might call collective bargaining
I think social media would be better if users hosted their content on their own platforms and third party apps could inject user content into their feeds instead of platforms like YouTube controlling all of the data and forcing users to comply with their restricting terms of service
you'd get the same issue,
the app could block the feeds/links/content from being sent over
Apps could still restrict content from their feeds but they couldn't monopolize the content and would allow for dozens of apps being able to share the same content.
the clips would still have to be hosted from somewhere, which would be susceptible too
There are hundreds of hosting companies world wide, it's unlikely all of them would activity sensor clips and even if that were to happen, creating a new hosting company is trivial compared to creating a new social media platform.
This idea however, would not be able to prevent ISPs or dns registrars from sensoring. You'd need a lower level solution to prevent that. But this would at least help remove links from the chain of sensorship
That’s called google
I propose a gaming debate. Legend of Zelda's Rito and Zora are not anthropomorphic (furries). Change my mind. <@&464233153654030360>
Fuck you you're just a furry in denial
define furry
accept that you want to fuck the anthro fish
hello?
Uh, scalies
oy vey, don't disturb me when I'm palying Crash Bandicoot
no