That’s still commercial. You looked all that up and neglected the definition of commercial and commerce. Non-profits can be commercial and they also might not be, this one however is actually involved in commerce.
You looked all that up and neglected the definition of commercial and commerce.
No I didn’t, but I knew someone with no idea what they’re talking about would insist otherwise without a shred of evidence. Commerce is the voluntary exchange of products and services. If I give you a pig for a goat, we’ve engaged in commerce. If I give you a toothpick for two dollars, we’ve engaged in commerce. If I give you some data for money, we’ve engaged in commerce. If I paint your house so that you redo my shower, we’ve engaged in commerce.
this one however is actually involved in commerce
Cool story. How?
The Signal app is free. It’s free to be compiled on its own. It’s free to be downloaded from the Play Store or the App Store. It’s free to be downloaded from their website. It’s free to be reused and redistributed and modified by anybody for any purpose at any time. At no point is Signal ever given anything of any tangible value by anybody for a download.
The Signal app is free to use. No feature of the Signal app is gatekept in a way that would allow you to pay Signal anything of any value to use it.
Signal’s servers are free to use, and it can be self-hosted.
Signal does not collect any metadata on you in a way that could be worth anything to any commercial interest.
Signal does not contain advertisements within its application or on its website.
Please enlighten me how this constitutes commerce, because you haven’t actually said anything other than “yuh huh”. The Signal Foundation engages in commerce, but to say that the protocol or app or service is a commercial product is nonsense that not only has zero evidence but is disprovable.
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.
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. 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.
Correct me if I’m wrong
You are.
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.
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.
Ps. Exchange doesn’t mean this for that though it can.
??? 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.
Regardless, you using an app and giving it business and in exchange for a service is commerce.
??? 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.
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.
(Signal isn’t a commercial app. It’s free as in freedom, free as in beer, and free as in “there’s no data kept on you to possibly sell”. The Signal Foundation is a 501©(3) non-profit, and the Signal app’s development and running costs are funded through the Signal Foundation. Please stop using this “commercial app” line.)
That’s still commercial. You looked all that up and neglected the definition of commercial and commerce. Non-profits can be commercial and they also might not be, this one however is actually involved in commerce.
No I didn’t, but I knew someone with no idea what they’re talking about would insist otherwise without a shred of evidence. Commerce is the voluntary exchange of products and services. If I give you a pig for a goat, we’ve engaged in commerce. If I give you a toothpick for two dollars, we’ve engaged in commerce. If I give you some data for money, we’ve engaged in commerce. If I paint your house so that you redo my shower, we’ve engaged in commerce.
Cool story. How?
Please enlighten me how this constitutes commerce, because you haven’t actually said anything other than “yuh huh”. The Signal Foundation engages in commerce, but to say that the protocol or app or service is a commercial product is nonsense that not only has zero evidence but is disprovable.
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©(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.