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.

but the idea of what is a "typical" union is probably different depending on cultures.

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

bad

mee6 keeps on supressing my posts

I can accept the Zora being alien and unique enough not to count as furry, but the Rito definitely are unless you're arguing that birds don't count because they lack fur

like wtf

I'm arguing that they're not human-shaped birds.

antros are antros