welovesundaysatspace

19 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

What is fact is that both parties need to be involved and decide a way forward. As the deal negotiations between UK and EU goes to show.

Didn’t both UK and EU made clear that “no deal” is an option? And where did Scotland say that it would not have “deal negotiations” with the UK after independence? 
 

Quote

Scotland would be far better off trying to deal with UK rather than feeling it is their God given right to gain independence as and when they want it. (...) What is not up to them, solely, is when  and how this will happen and what they can take with them or leave behind.

Wasn’t that what the UK did when it decided to “divorce” from the EU? I cannot remember the EU had a say in that decision.  
 

Quote

What is not up to them, solely, is when  and how this will happen and what they can take with them or leave behind. Much like a divorce.

That would, of course, just be an opinion.

10 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Mate, it’s pretty fricking obvious that they can’t determine what you say or do in your private life outside of Facebook! Duh!!! 
 

Obviously when people talk about Facebook restricting content it’s obviously in relation to facebook’s platform! What else would it be?!

Apparently not so “pretty fricking obvious” as someone here was claiming that Facebook is restricting what he can and cannot say — not what Facebook is doing with their content on their platform.

18 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

I completely understood what the question was, but it is you who doesn’t get the “jurisdiction” part! If you think you can post whatever you want on Facebook then you’re utterly wrong! If your post goes against their community guidelines they’ll delete it and slap you with a warning and then increasingly longer periods of Facebook jail for repeat offenses in which you can’t like, post or comment and if you still haven’t learned your lesson then, they’ll delete your account and therefore they very much restrict what you can say, regardless of whether they have actual “jurisdiction” over you. Fact is, as soon as you open a Facebook account you automatically agree to their terms of service and therefore they have “jurisdiction” over your content! Simple as that! Their platform, their rules! 

Exactly, their platform. They only have jurisdiction over their platform. What happens on their platform is not your right, it’s their right. Your right to say what you want to say ends where their platform starts. Therefore, they don’t restrict anyone’s right to say what he or she wants to say, because such right only exists outside of Facebook (and outside of any other private businesses’ and individuals’ property), where Facebook doesn’t have any jurisdiction. Where you have a right of freedom of speech, only the government could restrict it, not Facebook.

On 2/21/2021 at 1:06 PM, SomchaiCNX said:

Sorry for the use of the wrong word, yes it was legal to use the system using a different billing addresses but I think the EU closed that loophole already.

I highly doubt there ever was a “loophole” in the EU to use a different billing address, or that that is how big corporates would reduce their tax cost. That would be plain tax fraud. I really think you’re confusing some things here, but please correct me if I’m wrong by posting some sources for this. 
 

Quote

Yet again you attack me on the English words that I haved used and thank you for writing in clear English that they are exactly doing that what I told they were doing. Same, same but different but the end result is exactly the same.

I didn’t attack you, I attacked the wrong information you posted. You may find it ok to post inaccurate or wrong information on the internet, but then you also need to accept that other people correct you. 
 

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

Facebook doesn’t have jurisdiction over him or any individuals. 

 

Is your claim accurate? As an example Facebook banned trump for disinformation, as I recall it was a business decision by Facebook, not imposed by way of compliance with government legislation, monitors posts using moderators and so on.

Yes, my claim is accurate. When Facebook removes disinformation from

their platform, then they’re exercising their rights they have over their property. Individuals don’t have a right over other individuals’ or businesses’ property. They have a right of freedom of speech, over which Facebook doesn’t have any jurisdiction.  

8 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

You have never been in FB jail I guess. In Europe many people with  ideas that are orientated to the right are temporarily banned when they post their view. 

Like I said: You have your rights over yourself and over what you say, and so does Facebook has their rights over their business and what is being published on their platform. Your rights don’t extend onto someone else’s property, and so do Facebook rights not extend onto you or restrict your rights. 

12 hours ago, SomchaiCNX said:

take for example Uber. A taxi driver in most countries has to pay a lot of money for his license. A london taxi driver used to have a 2 year training and an exam. But Uber people don't.

What does that have to do with Facebook paying taxes in Australia? 
 

Quote

A lot of these companies in Europe used Ireland as the main base for tax invoices to avoid paying taxes in the country that they were actually operating or doing deliveries.  A big software company did provide the software for the French ministry of defense. Their French office was a couple blocks away yet the invoice was redirected to the headquarter in Ireland to avoid a huge amount of tax that should have gone back to the French tax department instead.

You don’t “redirect” an invoice. It works differently and it’s completely legal. 

Quote

they try to bend the rules by sending lobbyist.

That’s nonsense. They don’t bend the rules as I wrote above. And the role of lobbyists isn’t to help bending rules but to influence what rules (laws) will be introduced in the first place.  

16 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Facebook can and does very much tell you what you can or can’t say by posting on their platform! Trust me on that! 

The question wasn’t was Facebook decides to do with their platform and their freedom of speech they enjoy there. Someone claimed that Facebook is restricting what he can say, which is not the case. Facebook doesn’t have jurisdiction over him or any individuals. 
 

1 hour ago, tifino said:

a Master/Slave relationship

Not at all. Slaves aren’t free to go as they wish. 

1 hour ago, zyphodb said:

Why do I have to provide specific proof for voicing thoughts on a discussion forum? and then be accused of being a conspiracy theorist for having them?

When your “thoughts” are an accusation, then you should provide evidence for your accusation. If you can’t, then you’ll have to accept that other people consider it just another conspiracy theory. 
 

1 hour ago, zyphodb said:

 "Conspiracy theory" was promoted by the CIA in the 60's to be used as a label to shut down discussion of the Kennedy assassination, it now seems to be used by governments and media worldwide to shutdown discussions about anything inconvenient to the narrative that they're trying to push along with censorship of whatever they decide is "fake news" when did we lose the right of free speech???

You didn’t lose the right of free speech. 

49 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

What an arrogance, they can, if they follow the rules and pay their taxes. I suggest that each government start by arresting the country managers if the company does not follow the rules. 

If Facebook broke any laws, or failed to pay taxes, then the Australian government can prosecute them for that. 

52 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

Every business should pay tax. FB is used (and abused) as a platform for macro indoctrination, if you don't see that, well.

 

 

 

1. Facebook does pay taxes. 
2. The Australian government didn’t impose new taxes. 

1 minute ago, tifino said:

 facebooks very structure had made itself the perfect and available communications infrastructure for Community Groups to utilise; to Share possibly life saving information to surrounding populace.

Australians have lost more than just their access to the daily news - and are being Corporate-Punished for the Lawful actions taken by a Federal government 

 

 

... and I am already on a 2nd hand slap from FB for writing what Fbk does not like...

None of that is Facebook’s problem. They can do with their business as they wish. If you make yourself dependent on just one supplier, then that’s your own problem. It certainly doesn’t give you any rights over that supplier and you better not screw up that relationship. 

 

8 minutes ago, tifino said:

but it Does - over one's participation on facepillok itself...   Ozzies are most unhappy about the Loss of their 'Groups' most of all.  Fbk has totally Deleted content/Groups just as effectively as it Deleted a president...

What’s on Facebook’s site is their business. Not yours or any Australian’s. No one can tell you what to say; so can’t you tell Facebook. 

2 minutes ago, tifino said:

Facebook is... 

No, it’s not. It can’t even. It doesn’t have any jurisdiction over you. 

1 minute ago, John Drake said:

Facebook, I suppose, has determined that Thaivisa is an unapproved news source.

ThaiVisa shares contents from

news sources such as Reuters and other newspapers. I understand under the new Australian law, Facebook would have to compensate those newspapers for it when TV shares such news. 

28 minutes ago, tifino said:

I was on about; that if FBk is going to blanket-BlackOut all else that is important (including all those vicitimised Pages regarding OZ Charities/Hospitals/Personal Tributes etc etc) - then they can bluddywell block ALL the Leftist propaganda pages too!!  

(if it good enough for the goose it is good for the gander)  

Up to them. I anyone telling you what to say or not? 

10 minutes ago, tifino said:

it should fairly be blocked alongside all the rest...  

What law exactly requires Facebook to block content you don’t like? 

23 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Facebook Australia, as do other multinationals utilise aggressive tax avoidance, more politely, tax minimisation techniques, a worldwide problem which government struggle to address.

The solution to that doesn’t seem to be making a law that would require Facebook to pay content producers for what they post on Facebook. 

7 hours ago, SomchaiCNX said:

If she stayed in Belgium she was lucky. Criminals over there have far more rights than victims, especially if you are colored and not Belgian. They will have a regiment of lawyers available to choose from, free of charge .

5 hours ago, Peterphuket said:

That's in many countries of the EU the same, they hate their own people.

Colored people are in this days.

Utter nonsense, of course; often touted by poor losers who need a scapegoat for their failed miserable lifes. 

35 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

Interesting. I'm the total opposite. Prefer news from independent media without such a company that not only censors independent media but is clearly politically influenced.

Just to avoid misunderstandings: the news I am getting through Facebook (or Google News) are the same “independent media” that you are reading. It’s news written or published by Facebook but by the same “independent media” you may be reading. 

The only difference is that you are visiting and clicking through every newspaper’s website while I’m getting it served as one blended and curated stream. It’s really just more convenient. 

8 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

Not without going through regulations you can't. Try transporting explosives, dangerous chemicals, and radioactive products and find out.

And so does Facebook and every other company have to comply to regulations and laws. Try, for example, providing a gambling app where gambling is illegal and find out.