Message from @TEABAG!!!
Discord ID: 606765313991639060
@Lupinate In a nutshell, we need to break Facebook. I had the uneasy feeling, didn't know how we would go about breaking them as a population.
It should be a world investigation but , they slipped away from answering questions Infront of the , cultural committee in the UK. So, it's not like countries haven't tried to do their part on saying -: "it's gotten too big!"
It's just that they don't know which nation he's accountable in. The mergers and our social security was at stake the moment, that merger commenced. Then, to boot, Instagram. The people don't get a say on these things. Its of my opinion , they should , and international transactions need to be transparent. Sometimes , I don't think they need to happen. It should be the government's decision to help companies.
I just think then you can take the banks out the picture. As I prefer this banks to crash and businesses to keep people in work. However , the last world wide crash , they decided to bail the banks. Then , bitcoin was the only way people would ever trust the government and the banks again.
Its a false pretence. As your federal reserve needs topping up. So does everyone else's .
@Lupinate What do you mean by "states" in "states are companies"? How do you define a "state"?
@ETBrooD states, to me, are regionalised monopoly providers of a number of services, but at minimum they are a monopoly for the usage of permissible force & judgement.
@TEABAG!!! fb is accountable to us law first, and any other legal system second. Its also I believe the subject of an antitrust investigation there, as is Google. Fb is on borrowed time unless they change.
People have a lot more power over the market than they think, but unfortunately they rarely use it to its full extent.
@Lupinate In that definition, what does it say about voluntarism? Are you aware that "company" is voluntary?
He means the process for people to take a class action lawsuit against Facebook.
@ETBrooD that defintion of a state has no bearing on voluntaryism save being in violation of it. Voluntaryism claims the only permissible actions are voluntary. Tell me, do you voluntarily support every action your government takes on your behalf? If they do something you don't like or give you duff products, can you demand your money back? If you don't use a service, can you avoid paying for it?
You are beholden to the choices you make. If you choose to give up responsibility to another, and they fuck up, it's still on you too for giving them trust. With a state, however, key questions arise on where one's own responsibility ends and the state's begins. To me, If you can choose to support the system itself by participating in it via the vote, you are also responsible when that system starts failing you and others around you. After all, what right do you have to force someone else to act on your behalf? If no one person has that right inherently, how does the state magic it into existence?
i have no problem with companies *so long as they are voluntary*, but I will always have problems with monopoly providers claiming they are the only option in an area. Me being *born somewhere* has no bearing on whether or not I consent to buy from a provider, yet the state presumes it does just by the virtue of its conceptual existence.
@Lupinate Sorry to answer one of your questions instead of ETBrooD....
'''what right do you have to force someone else to act on your behalf? If no one person has that right inherently, how does the state magic it into existence?'''
The problem that I see, and ETBrood still does not understand about these mergers are:
1. When do you stop them being bigger than the government?
2. When you take responsiblity and accountability into the relms of business and it is bigger than the country and government, how do the people win?
Companies by definition are voluntary. The state is not. That's the point, and it's why state =/= company. There are some similarities, as there often are with many things, but they're not the same.
To answer your question, no I can't tell the government to give me my money back if they do something with it that wasn't advertised. They just keep the money and never pay up, regardless of how failed their service is.
3. If the legal obligations are not being met then are they not a legislation within itself and they have already covered themselves from that resposiblity?
But they need to pay the consumers because, we the people are the governments consumers as well. So the state is sort of responsible and this is why this is a civil lawsuit
BUT ..... it costs a lot of money to take down such a company
In fact it's even worse, the government, if it does pay for damages, does so by taking more money from a non-consenting populace. Thus further proving that the state is not a company.
The state can wash itself clean from a debt to its own citizens. No company can do that.
Lastly, a company will never create a de facto state, because a state requires laws. Companies do not make laws.
If a company makes laws for a region, it becomes a state, it is no longer a company.
In fact it would be a dictatorship, the worst kind of state.
Words matter, they shape our ideas, so it's crucial we don't mix them up.
Yes they do make laws and this is what people are trying to tell you. That companies have become so big that they are actually have legal teams that create their own legislation. Like Google has with its own consumers. However, google closed it's google plus arena this year because it forecast losses. It is not a state as such, one should not give these companies that satisfaction of having power over the people.
In this debate, I am going to refer to the banking crisis which was emerging in 2007. Whereby the US federal bank could have done everything in its power to enforce legislation to protect homeowners from the plight of the recession which was about to hit. They are the ones who are responsible for when companies loose the battle. The problem is out of the people's hands once the government acts, and on both sides of the pond they reacted poorly.
https://www.thebalance.com/2007-financial-crisis-overview-3306138
@TEABAG!!! Citation needed for Google creating legislation
It's a pdf which everyone was informed about and has been circulating for a while
I'm not going to read the whole thing, can you point me to the part where Google is creating legislation please?
This is about them also collecting data everytime you use their services, so it means they are not liable and they are saying they are gathering information on you.
And they are saying that they asked for pre consent already for private information be given. However, by the time you do the new registration process, they already have your consent. As you automatically are apart of their world.
I'm not seeing where Google is creating legislation, please point me to it
Domain.... world --- what ever they have legislated that in their conditions.
Do you know the difference between business policy and government legislation?
I suggest you read things and stop asking questions.
I suggest you stop skirting the issue and answer my question
We will share personal information outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use,
preservation, or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to:
Meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process, or enforceable governmental request. We share
information about the number and type of requests we receive from governments in our
Transparency Report.
Enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations.
Detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, or technical issues.
Protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, our users, or the public as required
or permitted by law.
Ah, so Google has not made any legislation, they're following existing law
We may share non-personally identiable information publicly and with our partners — like publishers,
advertisers, developers, or rights holders. For example, we share information publicly to show trends
about the general use of our services. We also allow specic partners to collect information from your
browser or device for advertising and measurement purposes using their own cookies or similar
technologie
You can spam me all you want, it doesn't work on me.
If Google is involved in a merger, acquisition, or sale of assets, we’ll continue to ensure the condentiality
of your personal information and give affected users notice before personal information is transferred or
becomes subject to a different privacy policy.
None of the things Google is doing is the creation of legislation