There is no direct company laws, the government now and again reviews company legislations

As far as I was aware it was Edward Snowdon that blew the whistle on the last thing the US government did, and this is why they hid behind Cambridge analytica

@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.

Google still doesn't create legislation

No matter how much anyone argues around this issue, it doesn't change, it's a fact, end of story

There are many arguments one can make about Google, this is strictly not one of them

They create their own enforcement no, but it can legally destroy you and so therefore, within the legislation of a company. Thus they are able to have their own terms of conditions covering their asses. They cannot arrest you but they can make you bankkrupt. I Do think that gives them way too much power. @Lupinate

Finally a good argument

You're still misusing the term "legislation" but at least you're going in the right direction now

The agendas which they give on their terms and conditions are predetermining the law, which @Lupinate I counter agrue with you that they should not be allowed to evict you because of those, international laws that we so, dearly cling to.

@ETBrooD I have always been there, it is you that does not seem to understand that if they start coming out with hate speech before the law is provided in the land!!!! This is their legislation!!!!

Way too much power, is given to them because they have gotten you to sign their terms and conditions.

You can scream and shout all you want, it's not legislation

So since you still hold on to that argument, I'm again backing out of this. I should've known you won't admit your error.

Give @Lupinate a chance to rebuttal my claims because you do not seem to understand that hate speech laws were only, apart of one country, and they took those laws, and made it legislation in their company.

Every country has its own laws and they as a company have not adhered to those laws in those countries, and their legislation has interupted the status quo in other countries. Not just the west.

Are you understanding the whole thing yet? @ETBrooD

I'm not responding to you anymore, I'm done with this. You can stop at-ing me

Every country has its own consitution and the big tech companies have their own by laws for each country, which mean, they are actually superseding the state.

The state being America and the UN has not introvened and it is a civil matter, hence people need to take a class action lawsuit. But these giants should never have been allowed to merge because now, our data, is their playground.

https://youtu.be/1AkbfmMNVP8

ugh, the entire #walkaway shit is pure nonsense, the Democratic party is not falling apart, neither are the Republicans. Get over it already

yes they are lol

the democrats are doomed

please explain to me how a party that recently won control of the house and gained the vote of more than 65 million people in the 2016 presedential election is somehow doomed😂

meh

i mean, they probably wont win the 2020 presidential election but still

doesnt seem like a doomed party to me

Doomed as in they likely won't be able to win the presidency unless they actually do something competent and clean up their act

Did any of them backtrack on the healthcare for illegals?

Probably not tbh

@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.

@Lupinate Thank you, so much because, it frustrates me because I understand the law but, I do not know how this can be settled unless all the consumers take class action lawsuits to prevent them from abusing our trust. Although, they are cunning and wrote that in the event they are merged with another company, the rules will change. I think this is why governments are never going to step in because they have loop holes.

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.

On the topic of Soygon's latest video: "The Validity of Nazi Comparisons - feat. Three Arrows"

First a minor point:
I largely agree, perhaps with the exception that, from a strictly propaganda perspective, Soygon seems to make too big of a deal of English, or indeed Anglo, uniqueness. I understand that more nuance is not strictly necessary to put the point across, but it sounds really bad when he claims that Anglos are just immune to Nazism. Again: I understand that he is not necessarily saying that they are in fact immune to to any and all wrongdoing, but the way he frames the issue does sound like he might, which just opens him to accusations of blinding pride and/or chauvinism. It's just unfortunate to make a good argument, and present it in a way that is open for crude attack.
.

And now for a more "important" point:
When Soygon discusses the "We are Deutch" video, he omits, perhaps to save time, a point that I remember perturbing me the most when I saw the video years ago. 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... The new, Ubermensch is just as validated in his righteous, joyful crusade against other polities and their peoples, as the SS were. Just as long as they do not comply with the German prime directive of the moment. The Germans haven't learned almost anything from what their polity did in the early XXth century. All they learned is that the previous thing they were insanely zealous about was bad. They haven't learned that being insanely zealous about things leads to an inherent sense of moral superiority born of excellence in the chosen temporary madness; and thus to the justification of subjugation of others as, we the Germans have clearly mastered the current zealotry far better then anyone else, which must make us not only inclined to lead the lesser people(s), but bestows on us the moral duty to lead them. And if they disagree, well, we know best anyway, so why would that matter? It's awfully convenient a way to structure your social moral framework, if you're an expansionist empire who's main tactic of expansion is to be direct military force directed at a comparable opponent.

.
N.B. It's similarly convenient to the Anglo pretense of not having any shared responsibility for the actions of one's polity. If an Englishman buys inexpensive produce from a merchant in York, because the Crown supports and defends British trading companies abroad, it is no reason for the simple Englishman to feel bad because of the fact said trading companies' entire purpose of existence is to structure the supply chain so as it is in Britain that prices are low, and abroad that the wages are low. Out of sight, out of mind it is for the English individualist... Seems convenient for a merchant Empire...

The “English are immune to Nazism” part of the video reminded me of a part in *The Road to Serfdom* where Hayek made the exact opposite point, but I guess he was a treacherous German so we can immediately disregard anything he said.

@Lupinate That wasn't the argument. Teabag claimed Google *creates legislation* which they categorically do not, and there's no question about that.

And I'm not gonna argue about that, I've spent enough time on it arguing with this person who doesn't use terms correctly. If anyone else wants to do the same, I'm simply not interested.