youtube and google are public utilities

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.

Don't at me

Then respond to my critique of your claims.

No, I'm done with you, and if you at me again I'll mute you

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.

what do you mean by a private court lupin? Havent heard of something like that existing these days, or maybe I use a different term for it

@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.

Ah ye, I already thought you meant private arbitration,

Well, in many ways arbitration between states instead of war is quite common

There are many contractual international courts these days

And wars are out these days, the pc term is 'military intervention' now haha

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.

Daily reminder that pretty much all mass shootings are perpetrated by men. Coincidence? I think not! And you ppl continue to question the validity of feminists fighting against toxic masculinity... Disguising...

Self fulfilled prophecy more like....

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

Did you just assume their gender? What a bigot

@Tonight at 11 - DOOM because women don't have the balls to shoot a gun

*yes that is a pun*

Your making fun of a tragedy is truly despicable. Made only worse by the fact that we face a serious necessity to increase gun control in this country and your shenanigans don't help!

what does Swiss and/or Polish gun control have to do with anything?
<:Veemote:501103628883591188>

Smh, there *are* no borders. It's all just a fascist conspiracy to keep us divided! @wotmaniac

Like voter ID

<:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:thinkgon:560211224923734026>

Fucking borders, dividing us by uniting us in an area, maaan.

If there’s only one Reich then there’s no need for borders

<:BIGBRAIN:501101491428392991>

America is not diverse enough, only through world conquest can we reach peak diversity.

<:hypersmugon:544638648721604608>

<:hypersmugon:544638648721604608>

@Tonight at 11 - DOOM Everyone pretty much says they were neutral. Even the dutch. https://www.netinnederland.nl/en/artikelen/dossiers/overzicht/tweede-wereldoorlog.html

@TEABAG!!! And you're saying this in relation to?

They would have made alliances with other countries if they had their own governments- during WWII

Again, what is this in relation to that was discussed b4? I confuse

@Tonight at 11 - DOOM ```` Namely that the new ideal German is depicted as gleefully aggressive towards not only the passé, old German "bigot", but also explicitly towards foreigners who disagree with the new German "ordering" of the world. The people who end up being charged by the angry mob of... Liberated (?), degenerate new Germans, hold up placards with the faces of Dutch and Hungarian politicians... `````

I have no idea why they want to remain neutral either.

Ok. I'm still confused as to why this piece of information adds to that point or indeed detracts from it. I really confuse