It would be fitting if the majority of users who were directed to the myface site concluded that they actually liked, or wanted to use google's features now that someone let them know they were there...

Of course you do. Think back to a time where you acted that way because of a broken window.

You know you've done it, that's why it sounds plausible.

Thus, it happens.

Is it a significant enough effect to cause wholesale environmental changes? Perhaps not in itself, but it would act as a constant driving factor, I would think, even if on a subtle level.

Hmm.

If you could post a link to this philosophy or write up with a fuller explanation of your opinion, I would appreciate it, because I can see it as a useful distinction.

However, while interesting, I guess that I do not agree.

There are no false "statements of facts". There are statements that are false, but these do not include a fact. There are statements that are true, and they may or may not contain an explicit fact.

"Fact" seems to be reserved for things that have really occurred or are actually the case.

So to have a statement of fact it indeed has to be true or it is simply a false statement, even if it is not of a belief or opinion.

Regards.

So, I am a bit confused. In your system it is possible to have false "facts"?

Nope.

The government would have to outsource the military action to another country.

They have the tech, but not the Will of enough people behind them to have predators shooting at people in downtown Peoria.

Sorry, the US government does NOT have a large army that would "happily shoot you" on a mass scale.

At least if you are an American, on American soil.

Such a government might just be forced out by the military and protesters if it came to that.

Perhaps you lack any contact with people in the military and that is why you try to dehumanize them?

"the current policy of the people who run the free world, is that only stable democracies are tolerated to have nukes. "

You are incorrect in that statement, and then go on to give the real reason the people who run the world don't want Iran to have nukes:

If Iran had nukes, then we could not push them around as much, and there would be NO talk of a war or invasion. They would be less subject to influence, as they would have the power to back up their authority.

The current "policy" (if you can call it that) of the people who run the free world is: "I got mine - Fuck you." After all, having nuclear weapons gives them the power to do so.

And that is all. They don't want other players to gain more power because it reduces their own.

It doesn't matter *what* the Buyer wants.

PayPal really has no right to have a third party destroy the item, either.

They do not own it. The Buyer does not own it. The Seller still owns it.

If the Buyer doesn't want the merch, and refuse to pay for it, they have no say in what happens to it, the Seller still owns the item!

If they refuse to give it up, they are liable for the cash. If they destroy it they are liable for cash

The fact that PayPal has a "policy" doesn't make it legal to destroy someones stuff.

How is this any better than going into someones home and smashing their stuff?

Yes and No.

LYour all or nothing approach is no better that the strawman you propose. No one is suggesting that this affect anyone other than FB.

FB certainly has the ability to delete data that is on it's servers.

In fact, I looked at their policies, thanks to another post:

No, it looks to me based on this that within 90 days your data on their site is deleted. If this is not the case, they need to update this document to declare what they keep when deleting your account!

It has been found out that employees are spending 5-20 hours handling IM and twitter, now that emails are banned.

If they would only stop screwing around and make the company gobs of money without taking up any time!