What does it take to please You? Break Your rules, and you fall. Follow them, and you still lose! Doesn’t matter whether you’re a sinner! Doesn’t matter whether you’re a saint. Nobody can win, so what’s the point? What’s the bloody point?
My argument would be people don’t own the companies.
They do – from a certain point of view – own their countries.
So while they have no right to have a say in the operation of the companies, they do have a right to have a say in the operation of their countries.
You could replace “company” with “rabbit” and my argument would make no sense.
Does that make me a raving lunatic?
This is what I meant when I said “You sound insane” – if you change someone’s argument to something completely different then IT’S NOT THEIR ARGUMENT ANY MORE and you are entirely misquoting them.
That is somewhat of a logical fallacy.
I made a very specific argument – users/customers of a company not being allowed to have a direct say in how the company is run – and you expanded that into saying I don’t support democracy at all? That is a HUGE misrepresentation of my position – one that is not supported by ANYTHING I said in any of my posts.
Also you have a very idealistic view of what social media users would vote for. To think they would vote for “a perfect possible system” (which is what your fourth paragraph suggests) is (for me) somewhat naïve.
Me? I think that one political side or the other would vote for their ideology to take control – they would vote for unfettered free speech, which would remove all hate speech policies and so forth. We’ve seen it on Twitter – all the people who were banned under the previous regime were returned. All the people who were banned for very good reasons were returned, and the site has gone to shit.
But that wasn’t my central point.
My central point was that just because I believe private corporations shouldn’t answer to the myriad of users & customers they serve doesn’t mean I don’t believe in democracy on a wider scale. And nothing I said in any of my posts would suggest that.
(grin) I can see how that could be the case.
But – polite insults aside – all I am saying is that I am not sure how companies and corporations can be democratically answerable to their customers. (Again – I am excluding those companies/corporations that have shareholders).
If they want to listen to their customers, or customers want to stage boycotts to force companies to act in a specific way that’s a different matter, but… take Globodex.
Globodex is a fictional company that is a multinational company with branches in America, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia and Australia.
It doesn’t have any shareholders – it is run by a board of twelve men and women.
How could that be democratically run by its customers? Given that there are millions of customers across eight countries?
And why would you think that because I believe this – that we shouldn’t have a say in how companies we use are run – that we shouldn’t have a say in how our country is run? Because that seems like a very wild jump that is entirely unfounded by any evidence.
No offence, but you sound insane.
Outside of companies with shareholders (who own part of the company) can you name any other companies where “users” get a say on how its run?
No.
Users shouldn’t have any say over how a social media company is run – there would be utter chaos.
Take Twitter for example – I would imagine there are 33% liberals, 33% conservatives, 5% neo-nazis, 5% neo-communists and 24% who don’t give a crap about politics because they are bots from China.
(I am just using these figures for an example – I have no idea about real figures).
So if you need a new name then there would be a huge fight to call it any number of things, none of which relate to a corporate brand.
And if you ask them about corporate policies? “Censorship”? “Should we allow free speech?” “Should we allow hate speech?” “What is hate speech?”
Can you imagine the chaos?
No. Social media should not be run by its users. It is just asking for it to implode within a day.
What the literal crap was that?
Yeah – I think you are wildly wrong about that.
Musk believes people are free to ignore what people want to be called. So I think that we are free to ignore what he wants Twitter to be called.
Watching people on the street in public is very different to staring into someone’s house – their private residence.
Or would you be happy with someone standing in front of your house, taking pictures of everything you do in your front room?
If you saw someone doing that, wouldn’t you be tempted to close the blinds?
I think your understanding of the law is sadly lacking and would definitely get you arrested.
I watched it. Bored the crap out of me.
But the question is in the present tense, and I can definitely say I don’t watch it again.
Not me. That film was crap.
(grin) Yeah – I realised that after I wrote it.
As unbelievable as it sounds I had only ever heard it said – I’d never seen it written down. (Or if I have I don’t remember seeing it written down – must have been twenty, thirty years ago.) I am not a horse person, so I don’t deal with vocab relating to horses all that often.
Just one of those things I guess.
I am not calling it “Twitter, formerly known as Prince”
I thought it was “free reign” but reign as in the way you reign a horse – you give your horse “free reign” to do as it wishes.
EDIT : huh. Turns out I am right, but you “rein” a horse not “reign”. Derp!
The first time I saw “The Force Awakens” my entire review was “this is just the original three films slammed together into one film”
Which translates to me not being that impressed.