thecrazyone

Yeah whatever you say on your post is not considered a legal communication. The statements you post on your wall are akin to randomly shouting out statements on the street. Other parties are not expected to listening to that and taking that seriously (FB included).

It's like leaving an email in your drafts folder expecting google to read it. Or typing something into Google Search box and expecting that to be legal communication.

More info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDHDM7PfyYs

The above video makes good points even though it's been posted by college humor (not particularly meant to get your legal advice from)

I don't understand this line of reasoning usually expected of corporations. Why do they have to part with their profits which they have legitimately earned? They can but should not be required or expected to.

Why would you not fund another person's internet from your salary? Are profits that much different from salaries?

Wow! This would be so bad:

1) Govt will have to raise more taxes (this is a curb on freedom). Why should someone else pay for your services?

2) Bigger Govt will have political motives which will murk up the services it provides. Said another way, FB loses business if consumers don't like it, but a govt goes on because it's funded by tax dollars not customer revenue

Wouldn't this then mean, to each his own. Why should one person's preferences be imposed on others?

I think you do agree to a contract when you use free basics

When they buy other companies, note:

1) It's a voluntary transaction and is not compulsory

2) They precisely buy because it would be harder to build it from scratch. Which refutes your claim that Google or FB can't be competed against.

edit: formatting

thank you for espousing the free markets ideology (I concur with you). I don't know why but these days, I feel HN also has become protectionist (where I'd have expected free marketeers).

Perhaps this is out of context, but I wonder if Trump is a symptom of this protectionism or if they're unrelated

well the manufacturers would tie into their system. If apple implemented this, you would be tied to their ecosystem, no? Don't see a way around that :)

that's a good quote. Not sure if it means much, but it sounds good and intelligent :)

I feel sad every time I hear things like this. That we've to be happy that we got our job done even when all our documents are in the clear. Or that we've to hope get some favor from them by fawning (not alleging that you did that). It makes me feel like we're treated like dumb children by our governments.

This puts things in perspective.

I used to get angry when the other party used to screw up, have stopped getting angry seeing how futile getting angry at a random (and ever changing) customer rep is.

This puts calmness in a new perspective

Wow! this is a good one. I would love to hear a lawyer's take on this to see if this is notice enough. Seems like it though :)

Thanks for the context. The other comments make it feel like this was extremely risky. Like "moving spacecrafts through closing doors".

You give it more context

reading this I'm happy the OP didn't say they would pay the salary in the new crypto currency they were tasking you to create :)

What's your point? If they don't drive sales, they'll stop advertising or go out of business.

Not sure what's your concern here

Well if you don't pay, how's the supplier of said free service going to survive.

Note: I'm not supporting viruses and malware, here in my argument

you're on point.

Also, we don't need to weigh the pros and cons of advertising as long as all actions are voluntary.

Why is it somebody else's business to make the world suit your tastes, you need to put effort for it, either by paying or creating such a product in the world, not by imposing it on others with regulations

Advertising is not a public service. You don't need to weight benefits of it for it to exist.

This might seem harsh, but no one is weighing the benefits of your existence to decide whether you live or die. You own yourself and you can sustain yourself hence you exist. Similarly, advertisers exist because they can sustain themselves, they are not coercing you into viewing / using content laden with ads. You're voluntarily consuming content which has ads. If you don't like it don't use ad-laden products

No you owe the content publishers a living if you're consuming their content else they go out of business. Ads is how content publishers make money.

Advertisers in fact pay money for publishing their ads.

Let's indeed deregulate everything.

Picking from the items you've mentioned: drugs: if someone is putting substances in their own body, they don't need your permission and you don't have a say on what they can do with their body, they own it, its their property

next, sex (say even prostitution): Two consenting adults having sex. What's your problem? Same as above, you should've no interest in what others are doing with their bodies. You don't own their bodies.

Human Trafficking: Forced human trafficking is bad. Everyone should buy protection/insurance against this from private businesses (security agencies). Voluntary trafficking is none of your business.

Banks: banks are over-regulated. Let them run like other businesses. Don't bail them out if they fail (not with tax dollars at least). Let them fail as other businesses do. Let better banks take the positions of the ones which can't serve customer interest

I would appreciate/welcome any arguments against what I said

I'm a libertarian. And putting/enforcing rules on someone who's not aggressing you because you don't like it seems like needing coercion.

You're voluntarily consuming ad-based content, no one's forcing you. If you don't like their ad-supported content, shouldn't you use only content which paid for in different ways? Why should anyone be restricted in their actions because of your opinions?

You're so on-point. All these rants about ads don't think about who'd pay for the content you're consuming if not for the ads.

You can't have high quality content and not pay for it - with ads or otherwise.

If you want ad-free, keep your credit card ready every time you open your browser

I'm not necessarily speaking in favor of ads. I'm just pointing out the shallow analysis which characterizes these companies as greedy or bereft of common decency who want to shove ads down your throat. It's a really unfortunate and ill-considered narrative

How's it a market failure (markets not working properly) when bad regulation/ regulator regime is to blame. One should properly term it as 'Government Failure', don't you think so?

Good point. However, that's a short term benefit at the cost of long term is what we should all remember

Wow! This implication to open source software is largely overlooked in the discussions here. Good catch.

That would just lead to under-utilization (if that's the right phrase for it) of power.

At most situations you might be assigning improbable risks to things. If you have a reason to believe someone is not going to abuse power, then giving them said power should be okay in real life

Edit: May I add that you're swinging from one extreme to the other. Things need not be black/white. It's a fallacy all on its own

Wow! that's an amazing library name? Would you mind if I ..er.. borrow it? (JK) :D

"worth billion dollars" is not the same as "have billion dollars". FB is both worth and have multiple billion dollars. Does this make sense to you?

IANAL wait is this true?

The way I understood this conversation was that BMW (continuing your example) cannot sue facebook if facebook infringes them on an of their car patents but it's not a right or a grant or even a license of any sort.

I'm not getting the angular hate. Would you want to explain why?