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.

It's not a matter of opinion, so it's a complete waste of time.

@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.

Companies are legally not allowed to create legislation. If they do, the government comes after them.

The government has a monopoly on legislation.

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*.

You're uneducated. Ask a jurist and get educated.

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

Ask a jurist, then come back.

So ignore public courts exist?

Every single jurist will confirm what I said.

100% of them

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

lol wtf, now you're just being retarded

Are all cases of law resolved by a jury?

I said JURIST, not jury, do you know nothing??

Are you completely misinformed about literally everything??

Oh sorry

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

ffs

You are clearly not informed enough if you can't even read this stuff properly, I'm wasting my time here. I'm out. Over.

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

WRONG again, this wasn't the argument

I'm out, I have enough of this nonsense. I'm serious, bye.

That's teabags point and mine mate

nazism is not a threat

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

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.