Legislation can be passed, enacted, or promulgated depending upon whether it is a product of parliament or is made by the government of the day. When it is made by the house of parliament, legislation is moved, debated and amended before it is finally passed. Only after legislation gets President’s approval or sanction that it is referred to as the law of the land.

You're still wrong, because no one besides the government can create legislation, and I'm not going to repeat that again

It does not matter .----- it is the same throughout all the lands

Definitions matter, words matter. If you use the wrong terminology, I'm going to call you out.

The fact that you so vehemently defend your position is laughable. You could've made all sorts of argument, but this one is untenable.

```What is the difference between Law and Legislation?

• Law is the rule or regulation meant to uphold the constitution and the societal norms through a system or punishment by courts having coercive power.

• Law, before it is enacted or promulgated, remains in the shape of a piece of legislation.

• Legislation is also called a bill moved by a member of the legislative assembly that is debated and amended before passage by the house. ```

I know what legislation and law mean

```• Source of law can be constitution or legislative assembly, but legislation exists only in a legislative assembly or the house of a parliament.

• Legislation is the law in the making though there are also pieces of legislation that never see the light of the day and never become laws of the land.````

Google is not allowed to create legislation, *because they're not part of the government*

read the end bit of that

I have read it

You're still wrong, and I'm losing patience. You can either admit that you're wrong or I'm gonna leave the conversation.

This is not a matter of "opinion", this is factual

```Company Definition:
A legal entity, allowed by legislation, which permits a group of people, as shareholders, to apply to the government for an independent organization to be created, which can then focus on pursuing set objectives, and empowered with legal rights which are usually only reserved for individuals, such as to sue and be sued, own property, hire employees or loan and borrow money.```

So you're still not gonna admit that you're wrong?

I tell you what you need to do ... is understand English . Just because they are not the government does not mean they cannot have their own legislation. They are a private company. They are by law, meant to provide a legislation of their own.

I'll just note down that I won't debate you again in the future. You have a pretty bad record of backing down when you're obviously wrong about something (you always defend your position regardless of how untenable it is).
And I'm leaving the conversation now.

So you kind of do not read the context of community guidelines and that they, are not there, to be your best friend. You are the consumer. If they see fit, they can make your life a living hell with the information that they have on you. Hence, the reason why I came off facebook as soon as they started to make it a thing about putting your name out there. Then, they do not delete data . This is also, a failing of Google. And has destroyed people's careers and it has destroyed their reputation. But you are, thinking that they are santa or, the toothfairy. They are not, they can do what the fuck they like because it is their legislation and they, do not need that shit passed in parliament or senate. Hence, on numerous occasions, Mark Zuckerberg has been able to cover his ass about his faillings. Because he is covered by his own loop holes of legislation.

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