@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

https://www.thebalance.com/stock-market-crash-of-2008-3305535

@TEABAG!!! Citation needed for Google creating legislation

https://www.gstatic.com/policies/privacy/pdf/20190122/f3294e95/google_privacy_policy_en_eu.pdf

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

You're just throwing word salads at me, and none of this answers my question

As in this is not spam, you need to read and, define it for yourselves that their community guidelines is their own legislation. Every company has legislation. Banks have their own and so do healthcare places, and also schools. But you are not getting community guidelines is their pursuit ... always has been and this is nothing to do with your freespeech.

Now are you getting it?

I have read your spam above, there's nothing in there showing that Google is creating legislation

It is their community guidelines which is legislation, hence why @Lupinate said that they are trying to show they are not liable. However, if you the individual does persue them; God help you.

Community guidelines are not legislation