America - The Official Thread

[pokemonfan58]

I don't think you're wrong but it's also not exclusive to a political leaning or party. Nuanced discussions are hard and lengthy. Most just go by their "gut feeling" and pick a team.

I'm still quite amused that presenting a dissenting opinion here automatically warranted "you must be a returning banned member". I've been here 5 years and never shared an opinion on this thread and yet this is how I'm greeted. Well, after all the laughing gif for saying something that has been increasingly getting support.

As long as you’re not shoving your political beliefs down everyone’s throat which is what you’re exactly doing right now and can contribute and have meaningful and civil discussions with everyone on here, then you’re welcome to discuss your beliefs with us, so long as you of course abide by the rules. Remember this site started as a Gran Turismo fan site not some kind of political echo chamber.

 

[Pupik]

I'm still quite amused that presenting a dissenting opinion here automatically warranted "you must be a returning banned member". I've been here 5 years and never shared an opinion on this thread and yet this is how I'm greeted. Well, after all the laughing gif for saying something that has been increasingly getting support.

When you straight-up flaunt the rules that you agreed to as "BS", that's when we remind members there are rules and consequences, and contemptible discussion of our rules triggers us long-timers to occasionally tap the sign because that's a sure sign of someone who's transgressed them once before. Admittedly, it was not the best nor most pleasant choice of words on my behalf, but it was early in the morning over here in not-Bahrain.

With a little digging you'll actually find that many of us have become increasingly disenchanted with the furthest political margins over the last 5-10 years (our site goes back over 20). We tend to hold those which erode or outwardly take away liberties with mild suspicion and distaste. Yet, with differing enough opinions that we're not quite the hive mind you're thinking of.

Here's the current state of things: Both political parties/entities are openly urinating on each end of the swimming pool; while one side wants a chainlink fence erected inside of it to prevent such a chemical reaction from ever happening again, the other side is preventing the pool cleaner from adding the necessary chlorine to fix it. In the next election cycle, we're told that your choices are to read and obey the sign that kindly asks you not to pee in the pool, sue known urinator(s), while others are actively protesting the addition of the sign, some claiming its their free expression and speech to pee in the pool, a lobbying group is trying to ban all hydrochloric acid...

If one dare mentions that we could just enjoy the natural nearby beaches instead, we're told to pick a side and that enjoying the milk of the mother makes you weak and the vomit of a giggalo is a much manlier beverage.

 

[R3V]

This is social media. Do you think you have a right to say whatever you want on this site? Do you think it is essential? That is why people are reacting the way they are, because what you're saying is nonsense.

Someone brought this up yesterday. I don't put GTP under the "social media" umbrella. We can have a long debate with definitions but I summed it up by saying GTP is a digital private book club (of sorts). None of the discussion points are about this site or others like it.

The gifs are because the points you are advancing are risible.

In their/your opinion. They could've asked for a clarification or chosen to attempt a reasonable discussion. Might I add, being pro gay marriage was once a position that is mocked.

Facebook is not a "necessity". A necessity is something that, if denied to a regular person, will inevitably result in their death: it is necessary for their survival. Thing like water*, food*, shelter*, and sleep* are necessities.

I disagree with your definition of necessity.

In my earlier posts I kept asking if one would extend necessity to such a thing as a cellular phone or landline. Even if you put aside access to emergency services, I, and nearly every person I met in my life agree that they are (essential utilities). It's not a longshot to go a further step in the age of gigabit internet and say social media monopolies are a utility, no different from phone carriers.

I cannot run my business or talk to family members without access to a phone, for example. I'm not going to die if I don't, but the social need of such a thing is equally important.

Further, I'm not sure if it's the same in the UK but where I live it is literally impossible to function in any way without WhatsApp. Gov employees require it in some instances. As for the business I'm in, it is also impossible to survive without instagram. With regard to instagram, I'm not saying one should be able to post just about anything, nor am I saying they're entitled to boost posts. Let's take the first step in acknowleding that such a platform with defacto monopoly and 95% marketshare (where I live) is an essential utility to modern human life.

Sometimes, some people require things in order to survive that regular people do not, and this becomes a necessity in their case. Insulin is a terrific example, as regular people make their own but those with a biological inability to do so will die if they do not have a synthetic replacement. By definition, "insulin" is a necessity (but you make it yourself), but "synthetic insulin"* is not; however, most societies recognise that it ought to be classified as one simply because, for a lot of people, denying it results in death.


Of course that leads into questions about why more general healthcare isn't a necessity, and why most societies aside from the USA (generally speaking) classify it as one anyway. That's for other threads.

Of course I agree, and as you pointed out, I'm sure some of the members ridiculuing my position here are also not in favor of healthcare being a human right. So it seems that absolute basic needs of survival are also non-essential to them

If communication was a necessity (it isn't) then Facebook would be to communication what McDonald's is to food. It's a thing you elect to use for convenience, and extremely popular, but not necessarily the best (or even a vaguely sensible) way to access the necessity.

I do think communication is necessary as I said above but on the topic of McDonald's, I'd call it a utility if more than half of the population ate exclusively from their menu.

each time it changes its terms and conditions, it is legally required to inform you and ask you to agree again.

What I'm calling for is stopping that. Once a platform reaches a certain % of marketshare, it should no longer be able to change its ToS unilterally (with or without requiring a user to click "I agree").

You are correct to assert that terms of service cannot break the law... but harvesting data in this manner is not a breach of law. If they said Facebook could kill your firstborn, then that would be unenforceable because it is a breach of law (you actually cannot legally agree to being killed either, at least in the UK).

Laws should be changed (explicitly) to get on with the times, though. Merely accessing my data, even through a bot that scans private messages with ad keywords, should be (and is, imo) a violation of the US 4th amendment. I don't see this as different from having privacy to medical records. The hospital can make you sign whatever they want, and argue that it's their diagnosis and equipment that generated the data. At the end of the day,

because I don't have and have never had a Facebook account and have never agreed to their TOS... but that's ultimately not relevant to the fact that, as a Facebook user, you agree to it.

What about the other services they bought or merged with? WhatsApp? Instagram? An Oculus Rift that suddenly required me to have a Facebook account?

For example, clean water is a necessity, but provision of clean water is not a de facto right; cleaning water is a complex process that requires other people's work (particularly on a large-scale basis, such as those in major cities) and you don't have a right to someone else's work.

No but if that person decides to extort humanity for their product, then certain measures have to be taken. It would be a good idea for him/her to negotiate a deal not too different from a private merger, but between his product and the collective/government.

You can't assign all the success of an individual to himself. If someone cures cancer one day, we would all have contributed to it indirectly, even if we paid our taxes.

Anyway I'm glad someone here is having a discussion instead of sending gifs. Sorry for changing your font color I couldn't read it in dark mode.

 

[pokemonfan58]

Might I add, being pro gay marriage was once a position that is mocked.

And it is still a position that is being mocked to this day. Why is it that there are still Christians who think being gay is a sin because god or the Bible says so or from what I’ve been hearing from other Christians trying to explain this problem because god only intended a male and a female to get married and have kids? If that’s still a thing then I’m sure there are people who look down at others in current year who support gay marriage.

 

[Joey D]

So internet voice chats replaced phone calls. There ya go, proved my point

You talked about phone companies, I've shown you there's an alternative. This makes phone companies even less of a necessity than they already are.

Are you a libertarian or something? If you don't believe in anti trust or think it's okay for monopolies to exist, we're just wasting each other's time.

Really, this isn't even a left-right issue. For capitalism to work in any way, you need to have competition. Google should've never been allowed to buy youtube, and Facebook should've never been allowed to buy WhatsApp. Just two simple examples.

Yes, extremely so. Based on the political compass thing, I'm probably one of, if not the most libertarian member who frequents this section of GTP.

And yes, you're right, in order for capitalism to work you need competition. However, government interference makes competition difficult. Google receives hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies whereas a small start-up likely wouldn't. This just means it's easier for Google to operate and prevents competition from coming along to outdo it without that start-up having a ton of startup capital. Get rid of the tax breaks and subsidies and Google isn't nearly as successful as it is today.

However, I'm not sure why you think Google shouldn't have been allowed to buy YouTube since they were completely different at the time of purchase. YouTube is a video sharing service while Google is a search engine, they don't compete with one another. If Google tried to buy, say, Yahoo then you're point might have, well a point. The same thing with Facebook too, WhatsApp is a texting service whereas Facebook isn't. Two completely different products.

This isn't a legal argument, and it's irrelevant because you can't change the terms overnight to say "by continuing to use this, we now possess your house". Companies and their lawyers can say and make you sign whatever the hell they want.

Except that it is a legal argument. If you agree to something, you're legally bound to it. And as @Famine pointed out, the TOS still needs to operate within the law.

"That's not how it works" is a non-argument here.

Slave: I want to be free
Slave owner: That's not how it works. The law is on my side.

Except it's really not how it works. That's not an argument, it's an actual fact of how TOS works. Look, I get that English probably isn't your main language so I'll chalk it up to the statement not coming through very clearly on the internet. I'm not saying "it's not how it works" in the same way that someone would say "because I said so". I'm saying that when you look at how TOS are written and are viewed from a legal standpoint, what you're implying isn't how they work. If you want to use said service, you need to agree to its terms, if you don't agree to those terms then you're only option is to not use that service.

 

[huskeR32]

I disagree with your definition of necessity.

Personally, I find their definition eminently reasonable. You've yet to provide an alternative definition; mind giving that a go before starting your next lap?

 

[Danoff]

Someone brought this up yesterday. I don't put GTP under the "social media" umbrella. We can have a long debate with definitions but I summed it up by saying GTP is a digital private book club (of sorts). None of the discussion points are about this site or others like it.

Explain what social media is, and how facebook is part of it if GTP is not.

 

[Yard_Sale]

And it is still a position that is being mocked to this day. Why is it that there are still Christians who think being gay is a sin because god or the Bible says so or from what I’ve been hearing from other Christians trying to explain this problem because god only intended a male and a female to get married and have kids? If that’s still a thing then I’m sure there are people who look down at others in current year who support gay marriage.

People forget Obama’s stance on gay marriage. He wasn’t even for it till he ran fit his second term. And that’s because his party had shifted over the first 4 years of his presidency.

Most likely, he was always for it. Just the politics of the time, it wouldn’t benefit him to say it. Which is why I don’t trust politicians on a lot of stuff.

Religion and homosexuality. It’s a mixed bag. I think the VAST MAJORITY don’t care. But like most things, a small minority of people (about versions topics) have a huge megaphone to compensate for their numbers.

Roe Vs Wade. I think most people on both sides are pro choice. With some caveats. Those caveats being late term abortion. As a republican, I don’t see this issue being worth it for republicans to pursue politically. But I also don’t see it panning out for democrats like their hoping…..

politically speaking and in the vote box

 

[R3V]

Personally, I find their definition eminently reasonable. You've yet to provide an alternative definition; mind giving that a go before starting your next lap?

Oh, so do I. That doesn't mean mine is unreasonable.

I'll give you more ammunition for jokes, but even in the sims video game there's a social meter that needs to be maintained. There's ample evidence in psychology and social studies that the ability to communicate is as important to a human's life as anything. It will at the very least, extend your life. There's also further arguments pertaining to Twitter, which I quite frankly will not bother getting into as of now.

A public utility is something one requires to continue contemporary daily life. There.

As long as you’re not shoving your political beliefs down everyone’s throat which is what you’re exactly doing right now and can contribute and have meaningful and civil discussions with everyone on here, then you’re welcome to discuss your beliefs with us, so long as you of course abide by the rules. Remember this site started as a Gran Turismo fan site not some kind of political echo chamber.

I started this by implying a court of law should be the one deciding whether a tweet is a crime/misdemeanor worthy of banishment. Don't see how I tried to shove anything down anybody's throat.

When you straight-up flaunt the rules that you agreed to as "BS", that's when we remind members there are rules and consequences, and contemptible discussion of our rules triggers us long-timers to occasionally tap the sign because that's a sure sign of someone who's transgressed them once before. Admittedly, it was not the best nor most pleasant choice of words on my behalf, but it was early in the morning over here in not-Bahrain.

With a little digging you'll actually find that many of us have become increasingly disenchanted with the furthest political margins over the last 5-10 years (our site goes back over 20). We tend to hold those which erode or outwardly take away liberties with mild suspicion and distaste. Yet, with differing enough opinions that we're not quite the hive mind you're thinking of.

Here's the current state of things: Both political parties/entities are openly urinating on each end of the swimming pool; while one side wants a chainlink fence erected inside of it to prevent such a chemical reaction from ever happening again, the other side is preventing the pool cleaner from adding the necessary chlorine to fix it. In the next election cycle, we're told that your choices are to read and obey the sign that kindly asks you not to pee in the pool, sue known urinator(s), while others are actively protesting the addition of the sign, some claiming its their free expression and speech to pee in the pool, a lobbying group is trying to ban all hydrochloric acid...

If one dare mentions that we could just enjoy the natural nearby beaches instead, we're told to pick a side and that enjoying the milk of the mother makes you weak and the vomit of a giggalo is a much manlier beverage.

The ToS thing was taken out of context. No issues anyway. I agree with your analogy.

Explain what social media is, and how facebook is part of it if GTP is not.

Eh. I'll try. Can we start with a new label? Social media: Open digital general communication platform. ODGCP. I'm not creative enough to come up with a better acronym. "Tech companies" and I include GTP need to be interpreted based on parralel entities from the pre-internet age.

Twitter was open for the public to sign up. This is really the only similarity to GTP. What's different is that Twitter wasn't targeted at any sub-community, topic or social group (GTP is). Reddit for example allowed you create your own and moderate your own sub-communities (GTP does not), therefore it's a general platform. Finally, Twitter/Reddit/Facebook/Youtube reached a significant enough marketshare and percentage of the population using them, making them an every day thing. They then CHANGED their ToS several times having already become monopolies and "necessary". Rights and necessity aside, this is bait and switch.

As I said already, GTP is a book club. Twitter is a town square.

You talked about phone companies, I've shown you there's an alternative. This makes phone companies even less of a necessity than they already are.

Yes, extremely so. Based on the political compass thing, I'm probably one of, if not the most libertarian member who frequents this section of GTP.

And yes, you're right, in order for capitalism to work you need competition. However, government interference makes competition difficult. Google receives hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies whereas a small start-up likely wouldn't. This just means it's easier for Google to operate and prevents competition from coming along to outdo it without that start-up having a ton of startup capital. Get rid of the tax breaks and subsidies and Google isn't nearly as successful as it is today.

However, I'm not sure why you think Google shouldn't have been allowed to buy YouTube since they were completely different at the time of purchase. YouTube is a video sharing service while Google is a search engine, they don't compete with one another. If Google tried to buy, say, Yahoo then you're point might have, well a point. The same thing with Facebook too, WhatsApp is a texting service whereas Facebook isn't. Two completely different products.

Except that it is a legal argument. If you agree to something, you're legally bound to it. And as @Famine pointed out, the TOS still needs to operate within the law.

Except it's really not how it works. That's not an argument, it's an actual fact of how TOS works. Look, I get that English probably isn't your main language so I'll chalk it up to the statement not coming through very clearly on the internet. I'm not saying "it's not how it works" in the same way that someone would say "because I said so". I'm saying that when you look at how TOS are written and are viewed from a legal standpoint, what you're implying isn't how they work. If you want to use said service, you need to agree to its terms, if you don't agree to those terms then you're only option is to not use that service.

Phone carriers are still necessary. You can't have access to government services offline in some cases without it. You can't use messenger birds to call 911 if someone invades your home with a gun. Sorry, still necessary.

We can discuss libtertarianism and government subsidies another day.

As for the last bit, I get what you meant. I know that's how they work or how the US consitution is interpreted today. I literally used the word "ideally" in my first response here. I'm saying that should change. If I don't agree with a phone carrier's ToS as stated above, and someone's about to kill me, of course I'll agree to whatever the hell their lawyers want me to agree to. Certain "private companies" that provide utilities I described (if not with the best of words) should not be able to extort the average citizen out of living a normal daily life by contemporary standards.

 

[Danoff]

People forget Obama’s stance on gay marriage. He wasn’t even for it till he ran fit his second term. And that’s because his party had shifted over the first 4 years of his presidency.
Most likely, he was always for it. Just the politics of the time, it wouldn’t benefit him to say it. Which is why I don’t trust politicians on a lot of stuff.

If you look at the gay marriage thread here on this site, you will see an evolution of individual member's opinions on the subject through time. Obama tried to walk the "civil union" line, as many people did in that thread. I think I made statements about how a civil union was probably the best route given how loaded a huge portion of the country seemed to think that the term "marriage" was. The problem with "marriage" is that people have a personal and religious understanding of the term, and then the government has a legal understanding of the term. Civil union is not so loaded, so I believe I advocated here on this site that the civil union be adopted for legal purposes and to leave marriage to personal interpretation. I still think that would work actually. Obama seems to have gone through a very similar thought process, as did many many Americans throughout the gay marriage debate. I think you're too quick to assume that his position on it evolved simply because of the politics of his party. We all went through the same discussion.

Keep in mind you're talking to someone who did not ever vote for Obama for president. I have no stake in this.

Roe Vs Wade. I think most people on both sides are pro choice. With some caveats. Those caveats being late term abortion. As a republican, I don’t see this issue being worth it for republicans to pursue politically. But I also don’t see it panning out for democrats like their hoping…..

politically speaking and in the vote box

Try to step away from the sports game of republicans vs. democrats for a second and just look at the issue. The authoritarians within the republican party are not pursuing this issue because they think it will benefit them politically. They know it won't. They're pursuing it because they have a religious belief about abortion and they want that religious belief enforced on everyone. You'd have to be extremely cynical to want roe vs. wade overturned just so that you can get your political team into office. A minority of Americans wanted roe overturned, and the minority got what they wanted regardless of its unpopularity.

Women's bodies are not a political game. It's not all a ploy to get someone into office or someone out of office. A sliver of religious people want deep, personal control over the population, and much of the rest of the country want them to not have it. Not game... person freedom. Liberty vs. authoritarianism.

 

[R3V]

Women's bodies are not a political game.

I was just telling myself I'm getting too old to have lengthy discussions online, but allow me to (maybe) have another one.

Did the Democrats including the Obama admin not have the power to codify Roe? Did they not choose to keep it as a scare tactic, a tool and a political game as you described for future elections? It seems both political insist on a hanging onto a stick and carrot for leverage. Abortion, guns, immigration and other issues. Republicans had full power of the government and did nothing about the ATF. Democrats had full power and did absolutely nothing they promised (abortion bill, immigration, universal healthcare). It all seems like a political game/theater and the poor public are like a little kid who's given a disconnected controller and made to think he's playing.

 

[Danoff]

Eh. I'll try. Can we start with a new label? Social media: Open digital general communication platform. ODGCP. I'm not creative enough to come up with a better acronym. "Tech companies" and I include GTP need to be interpreted based on parralel entities from the pre-internet age.

Twitter was open for the public to sign up. This is really the only similarity to GTP. What's different is that Twitter wasn't targeted at any sub-community, topic or social group (GTP is).

You mean because of the car video game thing? Yea that's not significant at all. But regardless, I could say that twitter was targeted at the mobile phone texting sub-community (which when it started, was definitely a sub-community). GTP welcomes lots of people, I haven't played the game in ages.

Reddit for example allowed you create your own and moderate your own sub-communities (GTP does not), therefore it's a general platform.

What do you call the opinions forum if not a sub-community? I thought, a second ago GTP was targeted as sub-communities, now it's not?

Finally, Twitter/Reddit/Facebook/Youtube reached a significant enough marketshare and percentage of the population using them, making them an every day thing.

So it's simply size. And the size is really based on any grouping you care to throw together. There's no reason to toss reddit in with youtube and twitter unless you're just trying to cobble together a group that is large enough that you think it's somehow different. You could throw GTP in there too. Watch...

Twitter/Redit/GTP/Facebook/Youtube reached a significant enough marketshare and percentage of the population using them, making them an everyday thing.

See? Easy.

They then CHANGED their ToS several times having already become monopolies and "necessary". Rights and necessity aside, this is bait and switch.

Exactly which of those that you put into that grouping do you think is a monopoly? Why does the presence of the others not undercut that argument?

As I said already, GTP is a book club. Twitter is a town square.

GTP is a town square.

 

[Pupik]

On a related note, I’ve always wondered what these regular posters do for a living and where they live. Their perception of the world, and real life republicans (not the politician types) is pretty comical at times.

I live in a Crimson State but I travel all around the US (and occasionally Canada) for work. I'm too cynical to take media at face value, have a too much of a sense of justice for opinion, too good at math and economics to be a fervent Democrat, but also have too good a sense of logic, understanding of science, the will for empathy, and know way too much about religion to be a staunch Republican.

I'm gifted with a twisted sense of humor to put up with America, but I actually meet people from all over her nation, seen the sights, and experience it with all my senses. I wouldn't put up with it all if I hated it. But at some point, the messages of "freedom" are getting lost under the noise of more laws and restrictions. And the pervading arguments are selfishly tiresome and it's creating its own anarchy. Social media just amplifies a lot of the wrong messages from the loudest people because it gets attention, and the wave effect carries it further than necessary.

 

[huskeR32]

That doesn't mean mine is unreasonable.

Hard to say since you haven't provided one.

 

[Danoff]

Did the Democrats including the Obama admin not have the power to codify Roe?

No.

The democrats had a maximum of 60 votes in the senate (the requirement to break the filibuster, which was not broken a moment ago about roe) for all of 4 months. That does not mean that the had 60 votes on codifying roe - something which would not have been at the top of the priority list during that 4 months because the supreme court had ruled that the constitution requires it. I highly doubt that the democrats could have codified roe during that 4 months, but the fact that they didn't does not make it their fault that religious nuts want to threaten women with homicide charges for taking a plan-b pill.

The democrats with their "control" over the senate just voted to codify roe, and it did not even get a majority (despite the democrats having theoretically 51 votes). They got 49. If you need to understand what's wrong in this country, look no further than 2/3 of Americans supporting roe, and the senate voting 51 to 49 not to codify it. For clarity, it would have taken 60, not 51, for it to pass.

Did they not choose to keep it as a scare tactic

The supreme court had ruled on it. It was settled, and had been for decades. You attribute malice where you do not need to.

It seems both political insist on a hanging onto a stick and carrot for leverage.

Your thesis here is that the democrats wanted abortion rights to be tenuous so that they could scare voters. It lacks evidence, it lacks reason, it lacks understanding, and it's totally unnecessarily cynical and demonizing. It's almost like it came straight from right wing media.

 

[Yard_Sale]

I was just telling myself I'm getting too old to have lengthy discussions online, but allow me to (maybe) have another one.

Did the Democrats including the Obama admin not have the power to codify Roe? Did they not choose to keep it as a scare tactic, a tool and a political game as you described for future elections? It seems both political insist on a hanging onto a stick and carrot for leverage. Abortion, guns, immigration and other issues. Republicans had full power of the government and did nothing about the ATF. Democrats had full power and did absolutely nothing they promised (abortion bill, immigration, universal healthcare). It all seems like a political game/theater and the poor public are like a little kid who's given a disconnected controller and made to think he's playing.

I'm more in line with this thinking. Their's some issues that neither side really want to solve, because of their political worth. Roe V Wade, the southern border, climate policy, the list goes on. The one thing that BOTH SIDES HAVE IN COMMON, is that they want more control. The dirty secret in Washington is that Democrats and Republicans are on the same team. They're just smart enough to realize that the makeup of the United States isn't politically as in line as the politicians are collectively.

What bothers me a lot about this Roe v Wade is that something as high level as this leaked out of the Supreme Court. That's not good no matter which side of the issue you're on.

I do find forums like this interesting, and I wish I had more time to dedicate them. But like other's had mentioned, a lot of these topics are so nuanced and complicated, and best had sharing beers rather than behind a keyboard. Plus I gotta go pound nails at the house right now... I'm here because I'm stalling from working at home. And my back hurts. And I want to play Gran Turismo later.

Stay civil brothers

 

[Danoff]

I'm more in line with this thinking. Their's some issues that neither side really want to solve, because of their political worth.

Unnecessarily cynical, and not based in reality. It may seem as though the democrats can't do anything, even with a majority, even with potentially 60 votes in the senate for 4 months under obama. But it is simply nearly impossible for democrats to push through legislation past the filibuster. Anything that's not strictly financial is up against whatever the Christians in rural America want. Joe Manchin just demonstrated that nicely only... yesterday? I think it was yesterday.

What bothers me a lot about this Roe v Wade is that something as high level as this leaked out of the Supreme Court. That's not good no matter which side of the issue you're on.

What bothers me more than that is the atrocious, and completely unsupported, ruling that it contained.

 

[Famine]

Might I add, being pro gay marriage was once a position that is mocked.

You might, but what's the relevance?

I disagree with your definition of necessity.

As you wish, but it makes for awkward conversations if words are used without meaning.

"Necessity" means "that which is necessary", and "necessary" derives from the Latin "necessare" meaning "indispensible or unavoidable".

If you can survive by dispensing with it or avoiding it, it is not a necessity

Further, I'm not sure if it's the same in the UK but where I live it is literally impossible to function in any way without WhatsApp. Gov employees require it in some instances. As for the business I'm in, it is also impossible to survive without instagram.

Both of those things are really, really odd things to say.

Being a "government employee" is a choice. Working in whatever industry you work in is a choice. A government requiring [a piece of software] is a choice. An industry relying on [a piece of software] is a choice. All are highly fluid choices; I seriously doubt that government required WhatsApp, and I seriously doubt that Instagram was your industry's standard, 15 years ago, because neither existed. I seriously doubt it'll be the same in 15 years' time too.

However, they are examples of terms of use. If you work for your government, you agree - as a condition of employment - to use WhatsApp... What happens when the government decides WhatsApp isn't secure enough and switches to Signal as a condition of employment? Employees can either agree and continue working for government, or disagree and stop...

What about the other services they bought or merged with? WhatsApp? Instagram? An Oculus Rift that suddenly required me to have a Facebook account?

What about them? I don't have, nor do I use, any of them. An Oculus Rift isn't a necessity either.

I do think communication is necessary

Why? What about communication allows you to continue living?

What I'm calling for is stopping that. Once a platform reaches a certain % of marketshare, it should no longer be able to change its ToS unilterally (with or without requiring a user to click "I agree").

That's not what "unilaterally" means though - and they cannot. They can only change their terms of use and ask for renewed consent. That's, by definition, a bilteral agreement.

Laws should be changed (explicitly) to get on with the times, though.

They can, and indeed should. This is why it's important to separate rights from laws. I don't see the relevance here though, as the point is that Facebook (and pretty much everyone else) operates to the finest, furthest extent of the law possible and that it is entirely legal for them to set out an agreement in which you may use their services and they may harvest your data. It is not illegal.

It could not set out an agreement in which you may use their services and they may harvest your organs. That would be illegal.

Merely accessing my data, even through a bot that scans private messages with ad keywords, should be (and is, imo) a violation of the US 4th amendment.

Firstly, you'd need to be governed by US law for that to be applicable. More importantly though, it still wouldn't. The US Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on Government.


Incidentally, I also use Dark Mode. Indigo switches to a pleasant, legible lavendar in Dark Mode:

 

[pokemonfan58]

If you look at the gay marriage thread here on this site, you will see an evolution of individual member's opinions on the subject through time. Obama tried to walk the "civil union" line, as many people did in that thread. I think I made statements about how a civil union was probably the best route given how loaded a huge portion of the country seemed to think that the term "marriage" was. The problem with "marriage" is that people have a personal and religious understanding of the term, and then the government has a legal understanding of the term. Civil union is not so loaded, so I believe I advocated here on this site that the civil union be adopted for legal purposes and to leave marriage to personal interpretation. I still think that would work actually. Obama seems to have gone through a very similar thought process, as did many many Americans throughout the gay marriage debate. I think you're too quick to assume that his position on it evolved simply because of the politics of his party. We all went through the same discussion.

Keep in mind you're talking to someone who did not ever vote for Obama for president. I have no stake in this.


Try to step away from the sports game of republicans vs. democrats for a second and just look at the issue. The authoritarians within the republican party are not pursuing this issue because they think it will benefit them politically. They know it won't. They're pursuing it because they have a religious belief about abortion and they want that religious belief enforced on everyone. You'd have to be extremely cynical to want roe vs. wade overturned just so that you can get your political team into office. A minority of Americans wanted roe overturned, and the minority got what they wanted regardless of its unpopularity.

Women's bodies are not a political game. It's not all a ploy to get someone into office or someone out of office. A sliver of religious people want deep, personal control over the population, and much of the rest of the country want them to not have it. Not game... person freedom. Liberty vs. authoritarianism.

This is something that republicans need to understand. I know a lot of Christians are usually nice people however the belief that homosexuality and abortions are bad because it goes against the Bible or God is stupid and doesn’t fit in well with some of the things that the US stands for. Let people be whoever they want to be. If they want to marry someone of the same sex, then that’s fine as long as it doesn’t harm anyone.

I also think Abortion is a topic that for whatever reason many people on the right fail to understand. If the women wants an abortion because of being impregnated by rape or if the baby raises the risk at killing the mother then that’s where an Abortion comes into play. I hate how this has become such a partisan issue over because some ancient book says it is and if you disagree, you’ll burn in hell.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Someone brought this up yesterday. I don't put GTP under the "social media" umbrella. We can have a long debate with definitions but I summed it up by saying GTP is a digital private book club (of sorts). None of the discussion points are about this site or others like it.


In their/your opinion. They could've asked for a clarification or chosen to attempt a reasonable discussion. Might I add, being pro gay marriage was once a position that is mocked.


I disagree with your definition of necessity.

In my earlier posts I kept asking if one would extend necessity to such a thing as a cellular phone or landline. Even if you put aside access to emergency services, I, and nearly every person I met in my life agree that they are (essential utilities). It's not a longshot to go a further step in the age of gigabit internet and say social media monopolies are a utility, no different from phone carriers.

I cannot run my business or talk to family members without access to a phone, for example. I'm not going to die if I don't, but the social need of such a thing is equally important.

Further, I'm not sure if it's the same in the UK but where I live it is literally impossible to function in any way without WhatsApp. Gov employees require it in some instances. As for the business I'm in, it is also impossible to survive without instagram. With regard to instagram, I'm not saying one should be able to post just about anything, nor am I saying they're entitled to boost posts. Let's take the first step in acknowleding that such a platform with defacto monopoly and 95% marketshare (where I live) is an essential utility to modern human life.



Of course I agree, and as you pointed out, I'm sure some of the members ridiculuing my position here are also not in favor of healthcare being a human right. So it seems that absolute basic needs of survival are also non-essential to them

I do think communication is necessary as I said above but on the topic of McDonald's, I'd call it a utility if more than half of the population ate exclusively from their menu.


What I'm calling for is stopping that. Once a platform reaches a certain % of marketshare, it should no longer be able to change its ToS unilterally (with or without requiring a user to click "I agree").


Laws should be changed (explicitly) to get on with the times, though. Merely accessing my data, even through a bot that scans private messages with ad keywords, should be (and is, imo) a violation of the US 4th amendment. I don't see this as different from having privacy to medical records. The hospital can make you sign whatever they want, and argue that it's their diagnosis and equipment that generated the data. At the end of the day,


What about the other services they bought or merged with? WhatsApp? Instagram? An Oculus Rift that suddenly required me to have a Facebook account?


No but if that person decides to extort humanity for their product, then certain measures have to be taken. It would be a good idea for him/her to negotiate a deal not too different from a private merger, but between his product and the collective/government.

You can't assign all the success of an individual to himself. If someone cures cancer one day, we would all have contributed to it indirectly, even if we paid our taxes.

Anyway I'm glad someone here is having a discussion instead of sending gifs. Sorry for changing your font color I couldn't read it in dark mode.

I don't use Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, Twitter, Tiktok etc and I don't feel like I'm missing out particularly. I certainly would not describe any of those as essential.

 

[Danoff]

If the women wants an abortion because of being impregnated by rape or if the baby raises the risk at killing the mother then that’s where an Abortion comes into play.

Or for any reason at all, given that it's her body. I hear you, it's more obvious in those cases. But I don't think the line belongs there.

 

[Liquid]

The general hot air I've seen over the past few pages is: companies shouldn't harvest your data and sell it

Sure. But there's a disconnect here. They shouldn't. I agree but that doesn't mean what they do is illegal. They shouldn't do it because it's not what you feel to be the right thing but they are legally allowed to because, whether you bother to read the small print or not, you consent to it in the Terms of Service.

Should they profit from your personal data? No.
Is what they're doing illegal and non-consentual? Also no.

You want to go into further discussion about the specific ins and outs of harvesting data? That's a separate argument. The bottom line is that they shouldn't do it, most people would probably agree, but they do. I don't see why that's gotten so bent out of proportion.

 

[Danoff]

Should they profit from your personal data? No.

Do you mean strictly inter-company, or you mean internally as well.

most people would probably agree

I'm not one of those people.

 

[Liquid]

I'm not one of those people [who thinks profiting from data harvesting is wrong].

Which is fine, there have been plenty of civil discussions on the topic in the past. My post was addressed at the recent three-to-four page fire that was looking like:

"You FASCISTS allow these companies to do this! Bootlickers!"
"No, you agreed to the terms of service. You don't have to agree with it to accept that those are the facts."
"😡😡😡"

Most of us are capable of accepting that if it's in the small print, it's in the small print whether you like it or not.

 

[Danoff]

Which is fine, there have been plenty of civil discussions on the topic in the past. My post was addressed at the recent three-to-four page fire that was looking like:

Understood.

I was trying to make a broader point about how even if you prevented companies from selling data about their users between them, they can still profit from it by keeping it and analyzing it internally. One of the ways that companies build in-house expertise, and dominate in areas of the market, is by having a deep knowledge of their product and the way it gets used. For social media that understanding bleeds into basically every way that social media is used. Even if they could not sell it, they would profit from analyzing the data to better entice users.

Likewise, other companies would benefit from scraping that publicly available information and doing similar data analysis on it.

Likewise, there are data analysis firms that will do the analysis for you. So even if they're not trying to make profit by selling anything to you, they're still profiting from your data by analyzing it for the company that you gave it to (facebook for example).

You can see how this is all very grey, there are no bright lines here.

 

[Pupik]

The biggest problem(s) with the harvesting of our data is that there's no line-item veto in the matter. And the simple answer is to not join at all; if it's free, there's a near-100% chance your usage data and information is the payment method.

For example, I don't absolutely care about how my data is used statistically. But I really don't need 2-3 spam phone calls per day (for all I know, Panera and not Twitter sold that info).

 

[Danoff]

The biggest problem(s) with the harvesting of our data is that there's no line-item veto in the matter. And the simple answer is to not join at all;

...if you truly cared, you would choose no more often.

 

[Pupik]

...if you truly cared, you would choose no more often.

If the advertising and suggestions are anything to go by over the last decade, their aim sucks.

(Maybe this is intentional? Make me lose focus and give it all up? Can I hide under my bed?)

 

[Joey D]

Phone carriers are still necessary. You can't have access to government services offline in some cases without it. You can't use messenger birds to call 911 if someone invades your home with a gun. Sorry, still necessary.

We can discuss libtertarianism and government subsidies another day.

As for the last bit, I get what you meant. I know that's how they work or how the US consitution is interpreted today. I literally used the word "ideally" in my first response here. I'm saying that should change. If I don't agree with a phone carrier's ToS as stated above, and someone's about to kill me, of course I'll agree to whatever the hell their lawyers want me to agree to. Certain "private companies" that provide utilities I described (if not with the best of words) should not be able to extort the average citizen out of living a normal daily life by contemporary standards.

Phone carriers are not, and have never been a necessity. As @Famine pointed out, a necessity is something that allows you to live. Nuriousment, shelter, and water are all necessities since without them you will die. Something like 10% of the world's population lives without a phone and something like 50% of the world's population doesn't have a "smart" or internet-capable phone. Those people aren't dying in droves because they don't have a communication device.

Even if it were required that you needed a phone, you still have a choice in what carrier you use and if you look into them, they're all going to be different. AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile all differ and I'm guessing if you read their TOS you'd see they're all different as well. The communication industry is highly competitive and I can assure you that if one carrier can find a niche that will net them more customers, they're going to do it. If people suddenly start caring about how their data is harvested, I can almost guarantee some companies will jump on that in order to attract customers.

I get it, most of us can be bothered to read the TOS because it's tiny, uninteresting, and written in legalese. But ignorance of what's in a TOS doesn't hold any water.

 

[Blitz24]

If the advertising and suggestions are anything to go by over the last decade, their aim sucks.

(Maybe this is intentional? Make me lose focus and give it all up? Can I hide under my bed?)

Panera will still find you under your bed..... or the monster that lives there since it loves their paninis.