this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
236 points (86.2% liked)
Not The Onion
15589 readers
1187 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a 501 c3 yes, no one is arguing that. It is however very definitely involved in commerce but definition. "Nuh uh" and tax documents that day is a 501c3 just mean is non profit and as an fyi being a 501c3 doesn't mean you can't involve yourself in commerce it means the profits derived from it have to go back into the company or a legitimate charitable organization.
Correct me if I'm wrong but an app is in this case both a product and a service, so what definition are you using to say they aren't involved in commerce when by your own definition they certainly are. Ps. Exchange doesn't mean this for that though it can. Regardless, you using an app and giving it business and in exchange for a service is commerce.
Good. That's a relief for the level of reality-denying yet to come.
The Signal Foundation is (although we're playing fast and loose with "very"). But the Signal Foundation isn't the product or service Signal.
Are you literate? The form 990 wasn't linked to show their status as a 501(c)(3); it was put there so you could examine where they obtain their revenue. I explicitly told you why I linked it, gave you a page number, and even broke it down for you in case you didn't want to look on your own.
CORRECT. I just showed you how the Signal Foundation is involved in commerce through licensing and service fees. Neither the licenses nor the service fees are generated by people using the Signal app.
You are.
The point of commerce is the EXCHANGE of goods and services. Holy fucking shit you understand this even less than I thought. If an old lady asks me to get her something off the top shelf at the grocery store, I do it, and walk away, I've just performed a service for her. This was done with the understanding that nothing would be given back, and we did not fucking engage in commerce holy shit. The point is that Signal provides the product and service freely, i.e. no exchange takes place.
???????????????????????? I'm apparently losing my fucking mind. Yes, that is the definition of an exchange. This isn't some technical definition. This is the unambiguous definition that everybody except apparently you uses.
???????????? WHAT BUSINESS? I'm losing my mind. Is this an argument in bad faith, or can you genuinely not understand these basic concepts? If I walk up to a house on Halloween and take some candy from a plate they've just left out, have I given Mrs. Jenkins from two blocks down my business? There is no business being given to Signal when I download or use their app. End of story.
Hats off if this is bait; you did a really good job.
No one is denying reality, I'm not even claiming you are im just saying you're mistaken. The only laws in the USA that I know that refer to commerce as a specifically for profit enterprise are realty laws/zoning laws not shutting pertaining to 501c3 or business licenses generally.
Good then we agree they're a commercial enterprise just not one that turns a profit, I'm not even sure how you intend to contort yourself to try to wriggle away from that admission.
A form 990 doesn't mean they aren't commercial either, it proves they aren't a for profit business but that isn't actually anything anyone is arguing though you seem to think that is the case.
Who provides the funding for the signal app again? Oh yeah by your admission a commercial enterprise the signal foundation. So who's bending reality to their whim?
Yes the exchange here is a portion of market share in exchange for a service.
Does that old lady compete against for profit companies for market share in "getting something off the shelf"? No then that's probably a bad example because they aren't at all similar are they.
It doesn't, you can exchange something without receiving anything, take for instance this conversation we're exchanging opinion and ideals, I know I'm not getting anything out of it and I imagine you aren't either correct?
I hope you actually read those because none of them actually support your position and notably you ignore the important definition ie. Commerce and commodity.
You get that their 501c3 allows them to act as a tax exempt business correct? Is every 501c3 a business? No, this one that acts as a business is a business, they're just tax exempt because they can't turn a profit legally. You keep saying I'm denying reality but dude they're clearly a business.
It's not bait but i kinda doubt that would change your attitude or the way you're speaking to me for no particular reason. I will say it makes you seem less than sane if we're being honest.
Sorry, I stepped away for a bit. I'm not rebutting a Gish gallop from someone who doesn't understand third-grade English vocabulary and is this confident in their complete illiteracy. Commerce isn't about competition; it's about the exchange of goods and/or services, and you clearly don't know what "exchange" means. I have people who actually speak English I could be talking to instead, so bye.
Also, the level of tone policing going on here is basically this video.
See again strawman, no actual argument.
Seems like it would be easy to prove a business is not involved in commerce if that were in fact true. What's strange is you've jumped from not commercial to flat out not involved in business which is Ludacris.
I've already made the argument; the rest is just a waste of my time. I've given up trying to play pigeon chess. Your conversations with taipan@lemmy.world and recall519@lemm.ee show a pattern of being a confidently incorrect moron with no understanding of how anything works and then baselessly accusing people of strawmanning you – when the reality is that what you've said really is just that stupid.
Thanks for admitting to profile stalking I guess?
Regardless.
They accept donations in the app, on the webpage and offer a service that's a business just a nonprofit one, they are in fact involved in commerce. Not requiring payment ≠ not gladly accepting it. Now add to that the fact you already admitted the foundation is involved in commerce makes saying the app which is wholely owned by the foundation isn't involved in commerce they're just working controlled by a commercial business entity a moronic thing to say.
Genius.
Also you're a liar, you said you were done. You clearly aren't.
I spent about 40 seconds clicking on your profile and scrolling through a few comments to make 100% sure it wasn't worth my while to keep arguing with you. Hope that helps. And my point is that I'm done arguing the facts because it's clear you either don't care about them and/or you're woefully incapable of understanding them. I don't know which is worse, but I'm leaning toward the latter.
Yeah that's profile stalking so thanks for admitting to it again? Creepy but whatever.
You're done arguing the facts because you can't defend the indefensible.
They offer a licensed product/service.
Accept donations and take in revenue.
That's a business they're involved in commerce being willing to break even every single year to further a goal doesn't make it not a business.
Yeah, you can't win an argument so you turn to schoolyard bullying we get it Internet tough guy. Maybe make an argument or go away?