Are you more concerned with government surveillance, or private data-mining?

[Fake Boris]

Gribbler, I understand there is a semantic difference, which is completely meaningless from a rational perspective.

A legal right is not the same as a "metaphysical" right.

There can be no law without force, hence my interest in the force that creates the law.

You are talking to me like a judge; I am talking to you as a philosopher.

Let me explain again why and how Google would a rival to the government:

1) The government's primary function is to enforce property rights
2) Information discrepancy is enforcement, because it is actually force.

[PLATO]

Roe v. Wade.

Not to mention some pretty good 9th amendment arguments by some of the justices as well.

[giblets]

Gribbler, I understand there is a semantic difference, which is completely meaningless from a rational perspective.

A legal right is not the same as a "metaphysical" right.

There can be no law without force, hence my interest in the force that creates the law.

You are talking to me like a judge; I am talking to you as a philosopher.

Let me explain again why and how Google would a rival to the government:

1) The government's primary function is to enforce property rights
2) Information discrepancy is enforcement, because it is actually force.

Acquiring information that someone consented to give you by using your service is not force. Google can't make anyone do anything against their will.

[Fake Boris]

Given your sustained effort against understanding, I give up.

[Jon Miller]

Not to mention some pretty good 9th amendment arguments by some of the justices as well.

So we get our rights from the government?

JM

[giblets]

Given your sustained effort against understanding, I give up.

To be fair, I'm not certain if anyone else knows WTF you're talking about. If they do, maybe they could explain it to me. Does philosophy teach people to communicate ineffectively?

[Fake Boris]

I made my point clear.

Every criticism you made was not directed at something I said.

[giblets]

You didn't claim that Google's collection of information about its users would allow it to become the next government? Ok.

[Fake Boris]

That's not what you said, ********.

Here's what you said:

"Acquiring information that someone consented to give you by using your service is not force. Google can't make anyone do anything against their will."

I know that you're trolling, but I'm afraid you couldn't say something worthwhile even if you wished.

[Aeson]

Government surveillance is more sinister and prone to abuse, and it's not even close.

All Google wants to do is show you ads you will want to click on. Google is also regulated by the government which gives us a measure of protection against any egregious misuses of the information they gather.

Government on the other hand can only regulate itself, so has a clear conflict of interest. It's also run by a bunch of soulless morons.

[Dinner]

Government.

[giblets]

Government.

Can you explain the question he was asking? I have no idea and he is bad at explaining things.

[giblets]

That's not what you said, ********.

Here's what you said:

"Acquiring information that someone consented to give you by using your service is not force. Google can't make anyone do anything against their will."

I know that you're trolling, but I'm afraid you couldn't say something worthwhile even if you wished.

Yes. Google can't coerce anyone to do anything. How is it supposed to become the next government? I thought that was the question you were asking?

[Fake Boris]

Everything has been said.

I will answer your question when you can, at least remotely, refer to something that looks like what I said.

[Fake Boris]

BTW, Kentonio actually came up with an answer related to my point.