The mind-boggling figure has been levied due to the company restricting Russian state media on YouTube.
Read in full here:
This thread was posted by one of our members via one of our news source trackers.
1 Like
This is quite literally the funniest thing Iāve read whole week. Two undecillion roubles is, to quote the BBC:
In dollar terms that means the tech giant has been told to pay $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Utter madness.
1 Like
Are you sure? 
If these impossibly long sentences make any sense, itās because they make clear that a defendant has been given a separate sentence for each of his crimes.
Source: Why does the US sentence people to hundreds of years in prison?
I would not be surprised if such amount is in fact real. Google is a huge company and is definitely able to make such damages. First of all we talk about big companies that have budget bigger than many countries. Secondly there are countless of issues with just YouTube. YouTubeās terms of services are inconsistent with the fundamental principle of law as changes to it are retroactive. 
Letās all think about how much videos YouTube ever had (now and in past), how much of work and therefore money was needed to just record all the videos and how much money are all around. Now think that with a smallest change in ToS YouTube grants itself the right to not only remove the video, shadow ban a user, so he cannot send new videos or even a complete ban if this happens few times. Imagine that you have gameplay-based account and all your videos could be removed and therefore your account may be banned, because in just one change YouTube doesnāt allow such kind of videos. 
Many YouTube channels have removed old videos just to be sure that some change may cause such problems. Do your really think that a fair penalty would close within few millions or so? Just because of one rule Google could be illegal in most countries, but since it has lots of power politicians are not touching it at least as long as same thing would happen ā¦ 
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brotherās eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, āBrother, let me take the speck out of your eye,ā when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brotherās eye.
Source: Bible (Luke 6:41-42)
Russian government (not people!) made lots of terrible things. I have no idea if this specific amount have sense, but Iām sure that itās definitely a big chance for that. Remember no country and no countryās population is fully bad or good. In many cases USA made terribly bad decisions, but nobody except affected people remembers it. Iām against anti-Russia narration as in future sooner or later it would change in a hate for innocent citizens. In fact Polish citizens and Russian citizens didnāt had so bad relations. It was always or almost always about at least one government or ideology. 
1 Like
We are both programmers, so we go with facts and logic. So yes, I am sure, as per the facts.
Facts and logic again. If that amount was possible, then Google would be a country or continent of itās own. And if Google is able to make such damages what would happen to itās operating capital? Fining a company to the point of bankruptcy sets a dangerous precedent and will push away investors and entrepreneurs and companiesāone big cycle of doom.
This is the nature of the game and business. When you join any platform, you are bound by its rules, and as unfair as they are, you have to comply to survive. Itās the same as going to another country and then refusing to follow its laws because in your country, things are done differently. If you break the law, you will be jailed regardless of how unfair you think it is.
Now some of the policies are unfair which is why there is a movement for open web and clamping down on big tech because of the unfair data and reach movement it holds but that will take some time and has many hurdles. If you want to live a good and peaceful life online, learn to navigate the rules and survive.
Good verse. But it doesnāt apply here unless you are wondering why Russia is fining Google that amount and not fining itself the same amount for its other transgressions on itself.
I never said that they were bad. I found the fine amount to be mad, crazy and insane.
We canāt hate the children for the sins of their parents and we canāt hate citizens for the sins of their government. However, children sometimes and many times will be punished for the sins of their parents and citizens will receive the same for the mistakes of their government.
Such is the nature of the world and I doubt whether one person typing away on the keyboard via the internet can do anything about that.
If court is able to prove crime on such level then all company money should be collected and used to pay compensation for at least part of the loses starting from the latest ones. 
Allowing it to commit any crime because itās big itās even more dangerous precedent.
Of course they would do so for Google and at least all connected by law companies. Sorry, but you are naive. The investors does not invest everything they can in one company or many connected by law companies.Investment diversification is one of absolute basics to survive there. For sure they would think two times or even more before investing in companies doing similar thing, but they would definitely not lose all the money or resign from investing at all. 
Of course in short term it causes more damages, but in long term it gives almost only positive actions. If investors would for example avoid companies using spying technologies then those would be soon removed from their products and the PR would stand on the head to convince investors to come back. There would be always new companies to invest. Even in countries controlled by the worst ideologies companies still existed - there are always people willing to work. The market avoids inaction/immutability. 
You really allow that? Can police or company kill you because thatās allowed by some lower order law? Please read twice whatās hierarchy of legal acts. You are not allowed to kill people you invited to your house, because you own it. Praising and encouraging a crime is illegal, so pretty please for your own good, donāt say itās a nature/normal or something like that. For sure we talk here not about ājustā unfair rules, but illegal ones (in context of retroactive law). 
Really? So ā¦ all term of services shared in the web have higher precedence than constitution in your country? Really? I did not know that officially your country is owned by Google or any other company, because thatās the only way itās possible. Companies have huge amount of money, but at least for now their rules have still lowest precedence. 
This only proves that politicians work against people. Still this does not prove that some companies officially owns specific country and their rules have higher precedence than all itās law. 
Again problem with context (unfair vs illegal)- it looks almost funny if you summary it:
- Movements like that can change company rules, so they should be stronger than companies
- Companies rules are more important than law in your country
- On 3rd place itās government with penalty law
- Last are people and human right - wait, arenāt those the strongest ones (in many means)?
Of course such movements are important, but with all my hope they would not change the āgame rulesā. People have to āvote with walletā. It would not help if we organise anti BigTech movements on for example Facebook. 
I do not rely on any BigTech service. Of course Iām using them from time to time. What I want to say that a possible ban affect only the habits and not the whole life. In very, very short I would have to find funny cat videos somewhere else. Thatās really not a big thing for me. However I donāt believe that anyone can live with that. Soon people would be used to LLMs and ask them how to protest against using LLMs. Thatās unfortunately a sad reality of a todayās movements. 
Or just live without big tech which surprisingly is possible. If we talk about YouTube there are apps/services that let you upload video once, but to many sites or import videos from other sites - the last one is possible on polish site cda.pl. I could be banned on YouTube and my life would not be changed. 
After separator line I started to speak more generally. This quote was supposed to prevent anti-russia comments (or rather anti-russian comments). Because of one Putin people started to hate everyone in any way related to Russia which is insane.
Same as above, it wasnāt for you. The amount may be real, but especially if we assume that russia government would help everyone affected in the world. For sure it was a political decision, but the point is that the politicians are using truth as an excuse for their decisions. 
Ok, so everyone writing good would now stop? And then what? Absolutely nothing. When I write I try to reach to people and itās obvious that sooner or later I would reach someone who would agree and do the same. Now we have 2 people, then 4 and so on ā¦ For sure I standalone would not change anything. We would need to be counted in millions or even more similarly to the movements. The point is that the silence in fact means acceptance. 
In general the hierarchy of laws should looks like:
- International agreements on human rights and related rights. Those have yet no value, but are implemented by:
- Constitution
- Other types of international agreements, some of them implemented by:
- Countryās law
- Lower precedence law (like state law, local laws etc.)
- Other laws (terms of services, gym/pool rules etc.)
@alvinkatojr I see that for some reason you have focused on āunfairā word and what you wrote is correct as we have to follow Other laws regardless how low precedence they have as long as they do not conflict with higher precedence laws. However I wrote about illegal rules and having this in context your reply looks terribly bad as you can see above. Small mistake? Whatās a difference between stealing product and buying it? You do everything exactly same i.e. you take product to the home. There is one extra thing which you do i.e. payment. Yup, tiny mistake, but it affects your whole reply. 
One of the fundamental principles of law in (at least considered to be) democratic countries is that the law is not retroactive. Since you have replied to my post please read again what I mention. I did not mention ājustā unfair rules. Thatās said ā¦ Iām not law expert, but āunfairā rules should be also illegal if you can prove they are unfair. When entering into an agreement, you need to take care of more details than just the consent of both parties, including:
- The parties must know and understand the content of the contract and its consequences
- The parties are treated as equal entities before the law
- Of course, the contract cannot contradict the law
So you cannot agree to give your child or agree to kill yourself in exchange for a product or a services. If you can prove that a rule which just ālooks unfairā is in fact for example in conflict with higher law then all consequence of specific rule should be undone or repaired. Of course before the YouTuber would prove in court obvious things like retroactive law, they would have to deal with the fact that their account and all of the videos may be removed. For sure once proved YouTube should pay you back, but we know that the amount is always too small to compensate all loses. Since people agree on that itās illegal, but still active rule. This is why writing about it and letting people know is important.
Honestly I hope that such a huge penalties would happen in future. While I donāt like the political reason still such penalties can really force such a big companies to not conflict with law. 
And if the court is biased and unfair and hasnāt proven any crimes then whatever they say is true regardless of the facts? You are an amazing dreamer, Eiji. Truly amazing.
Allowing any government to issue absurd fines on biased judgement sets an exceeedingly dangerous precedent 
So me blocking you is a crime and I should be fined 1 trillion dollars?
The guy who says I should be fined 1 trillion dollars for blocking him is calling me naive? 
In other words, since Iām being fined 1 trillion dollars for blocking you on devtalk, I will not lose any money even though Iām not even worth a million or a hundred thousand dollars? Arenāt you the one who is very naive?
Empty idealism.
If you ban porn people use VPNS. You ban drugs, underground trafficking syndicates are created.
The more you ban and fine something, the more you make it popular and in demand. Unfortunately, this is not something that a naive idealist would understand.
Which is why your logic fails. There are always countries willing to buy spyware, guns, weapons and minerals from the worst criminals, leaders and governments.
Emptry dreams. Empty ideals. Investors want to make money, they donāt care about morals.
You really allow that? Can a country or government fine you, bankrupt you and shut you down because thatās allowed by some lower/higher order law?
You are also not allowed to fine me 1 trillion dollars just because I blocked you on devtalk and you feel offended.
So itās a crime to decide to the rules of a platform that I own? Itās abnormal??
Unfortunately you are not thinking straight, Eiji. Focus.
Youāve clearly never heard of the term: āmy world, my rulesā.
This is good and commendable. Unfortunately, many of these services never last. People left Twitter after Elon bought it, and many alternatives were started: Mastodon, Blue Sky, Threads but people still came back to Twitter now X. The human brain likes easy and simple stuff, X is simple to use, Mastodon and Blue Sky are not.
Iāve seen such comments and I abhor them. There is a lot more to the conflict that we as non participants know nothing about and I canāt blindly join a crusade of hate against people for no simple reason. In an ideal world, there would be no wars, but this is not an ideal world, this is reality.
The amount is not real. And Russiaās government wonāt help everyone in the world. You said I was naive?
And you said it was a good thing because it would make investors think twice. So how are you any different from the politicians? You know what they are doing is wrong but you still support them? Hmm? Make it make sense.
Given my current response, I think your reply looks terribly bad.
This is countered by the fact that precedents are set and these can end being laws in the future. You point is moot.
Fair enough. But there was no agreement between me and you that I should allow you to view my content or reply to me. So why are you fining me 1 trillion dollars just because I blocked you??
Fair enough but this is the risk of big tech. Which is why we need to be careful. A user in the US lost his gmail account because he sent pictures of the babyās penis to his doctor during a medical consultation and Google deemed it child porn.
There is a lot of unfairness with these companies hence the onus is on you to be careful.
This is good.
But this is bad. Very bad.
Yeah ā¦
History is written by the victors
For good and bad until you prove that someone is guilty they are innocent.
If it happens within said country we have unfortunately nothing to do about that. Forcing any changes usually means declaring war or support revolution. Please donāt believe that revolution is a good thing as people who would create a new government are usually even more worse than previous ones. If you want to be sure that revolution would go as you expect you would have to control the revolutionaries and that country which is against democracy which means you are going to (in very short) replace one king with another. There are simply cases where there are no good solutions and only people in Russia can prevent illegal activities.
What?
How did this turned this way? I said that itās not ok that a company may commit any crime, because itās big. Are you a big company and not a person? 
If you block me as an forum user then itās your choice that you donāt want to talk with me anymore. If you would block me as a site owner then you would prevent communication with other users which is called a censorship.
The amount depends on what damages you would cause. For example if you would make people think that the worst and they should kill me, block any user who does not agree with that and therefore cause my death you for sure would have millions to pay. Itās hard to guess how long I would live and therefore how much money I would have among of all lost years. If you would do same for a person like JosĆ© Valim the penalty would be terribly bigger as itās not only about him, but also what he did and how that affected others. Lots of people have a really good money as an Elixir developers, so I would not be surprised if someone would count such a huge amount of money.
Again context ā¦ millions of YouTubers recording huge amount of videos. Each video have ads, some YouTubers have a nice deals because they own channel. YouTube affected all of those sources of money which were coming across all the years since the very first video on YouTube. Itās not even on the level of an one or two devs salary. For sure retroactive rule is one of many rules an practices that looks like they are in obvious conflict with law. I cannot imagine what I would do if I would have all of the YouTubers loses - thatās how big amount it is regardless of what politicians think.
Now thatās called a slander. I never said that you should pay me even one cent! I never said that I would have any loses because you personally block me! 
Again, from where did it come? Do you think Google is the only investor of Google or what?
Itās normal for investors that there is always some risk. If you would force something just because the investors would lose something then you think what would happen? Investors would start to support even terrorists and then what? Donāt stop terrorists because investors were paying them and they would lose? If you would always refund all loses to investors then they would choose the investments with the highest risk and who would pay if they would lose? You? Everyone from taxes?
Pfff, so the reason for introduce a law you call empty idealism? Are you crazy?
For sure if court would decide to close factory because people are dying there then in short term the factory and everyone involved would not have any money, but once again market would not stop, because court would stop a factory. People would simply invest in new factories and asking twice about workers safety. What you have said is that the factory should not be stopped even for a second. What would factory owner think? They would not care about human laws at all. Great idealism, very great.
Again from where porn, drugs and all of that came? Talking about a legal company doing few possible illegal things like about a drug dealer is very bad example. No, you would not stop drugs, black market is not working as same as normal one, because there are people who donāt care about human laws and what you count for allowing big companies become the same, because ā¦ investors would lose?
As same as there are always people doing stupid things. How is that related? You have no logic. Every time I mention normal market you mention black market. Every time I mention workers you mention drug dealers. That have no sense.
Market would not magically disappear because you have banned a BigTech. Closing a company does not mean that all the technology magically disappears. The market would buy hardware for a lower price and sell their own products and services using it.
Why do you quote the same two times? Yes, investors only care about money. If you would use law and police well then you are able to show them than on normal market they can lose money. All you do is to increase risk. The bigger risk the less investors are interested, because as you said they care only about money. If you would make positive moves (for example set VAT to 0% for some products) even on things like pink socks then investors would be more interested in it. The easier money would come from investment and the lower risk they give the more investment gains in popularity. Thatās not an empty dreams, but basics of economy.
If I do illegal stuff - of course. Thatās a reason what law and police were created for, you know? If the law system would not have penalties then no matter what police you would have people would commit crimes. The biggest penalty and at the same time the better police the less crimes you have. If you like mentioning black market then letās go with that. Who cares if drug dealers loses all money? Same goes to every company. You work legally or on black market. If you do illegal things you need to count that all the money you have from illegal activity would be taken from you.
Again, I have no idea from what that came from. You can block conversation even with all members on the forum, but if you would block members from using site or block communication between one member and others then itās illegal. For sure administration have all rights to delete your account. The rules here are valid with higher laws and so itās fine.
Again, only if they conflict with the law. I have no idea whatās your point. I mentioned many times things like retroactive rule, but for some reason you generalise it for all rules and tries to make me the bad one.
Thatās also not an argument. If you know any country officially controlled by Google feel free and mention it. Please share a link for it.
Oh, now you are a god? No, itās not your world and you cannot do any crime in your home. What you quote is about āhome rulesā that are not in conflict with law i.e. you can educate your children as you wish, but you cannot punch them, because they donāt clean their rooms.
Define real? I only said that this may be the right penalty to compensate loses. It does not need to be a real i.e. amount that they can pay. I talk only about estimates. For sure Russia would not help, but they could estimate others loses and demand all that money āfor a better goodā. As said politicians use truth however they want, but it does not need to mean that the amount is bad or not. The amount may be good for all the loses, Russia for sure should not receive that money, but the amount may be good - I never counted that, but for sure it wouldnāt be just a few millions or billions ā¦
And who said I support them? I even barely know him only because of his position.
What are you talking about? Hahah ā¦ retroactive law is a rule that works also for things done in past, for example: YouTube may give a ban for some content even if said video was uploaded before a rule has been added to terms of services. As said above only because of this thousands if not millions of videos were removed from YouTube.
How is that related to precedents and possible laws in future? Again, for some reason you mixes what I said about YouTube rules and what you said about Russiaās court decision.
How much times you mention it? I donāt care if you block me. Again Iām speaking that the amount may be fair having in mind how big loses were just because of the fact of deleted videos and banned channels for retroactive rule and you still give a wrong example. I would not lose anything if you would block my messages for your account only. YouTubers lost potentially billions on just one retroactive rule.
If the amount is good the penalty should be done regardless if they have enough money or not. So now what? I would take from you 1 million and burn it. I donāt have your money, so the court canāt give me a penalty? Thatās even worse. In this way Iām able to hack all bank account, remove all records and have no fear that I would be arrested. Thatās a call for anarchy.
You have to reaped what you yourself sowed.
Regardless if thatās 1 cent or one trillion dollars ā¦
I have to admit that talking to you is kinda fun. You somehow have a lot to say but canāt seem to keep your thoughts together.
You didnāt care about proving whether Google was guilty or not. You just wanted them fined as an example so investors can take their money elsewhere.
We are talking about fines, NOT revolutions. If you want to take over any country, via a revolution or coup then you are free to go do so. But please write a will first and make burial arrangements before you depart.
What?
This contradicts what you said. You were happy with the crazy amount Google was fined. Why are you changing positions now?
Haha
I concede. You are very right on this one.
No, this is called an analogy on a lower scale. Itās designed to make you think, contrast and compare then respond accordingly.
So investors should āinvestā all their capital in paying fines?
Nope but I think you are
Handling risks and losing money due to unfair fines are two different things.
Analogies, Eiji. Analogies. Sighā¦
Market would go underground. And so would the money.
Nope. The market would shift underground and operate illegally or go somewhere else where they can work without government interruptions.
Because you are obsessed with ideals. Reality is a different story.
So what crime did Google commit to deserve that hefty fine?
Have you never heard of terms of service? In other words: we reserve the right to do this and that?
So in other words, Google has the right to delete Russian state media accounts and block access. So why are they being fined?
So funny haha. So in other words, Google conflicted with the law and have to be fined that crazy amount? Which law is it exactly that forces Google to operate in Russia and offer their services there?
How does this add to the conversation? If Google is being fined, are you saying it owns Russia? Where is your logic?
Does this apply to the same government which was issuing crazy fines for zero crimes except being banned?
You like shifting positions. First the amount is real, then itās not. Than it is. Can you stop dancing around and make a choice?
But you just fined me 1 trillion dollars for blocking you? You surely care if you want me to pay that muchā¦
The losses from being banned or deleted are not equivalent to that bankrupting fine.
So you will still punish me with that crazy fine, just because I blocked you? Life is not fairā¦
Some rules obviously conflict not even with law, but a basics of law like mentioning retroactive rule. People change, countries change as same as their leaders. It was a matter of time that some court would give a huge penalty to Google. In Poland there is a case called serial suicider. In very short people commit suicide even in impossible ways, because that how political court decided.
There is a difference between declaring that some politician kills people or order to do so (as without any evidence itās illegal) and saying that it would be obvious for people in future would talk about it ā¦ without censorship. This is simply because people responsible for this case would not live anymore and there is no reason to protect them. Similarly since Putin cancels connections with so-called West World he have no need to censor the truth and use it for his purposes.
Not as an example - it should be done for everyone who is doing the same. I have mentioned retroactive rule which I know hearing from YouTuber as this was the reason why he have deleted his videos even if nothing on them was illegal (regarding terms of services) at the time of uploading them. If there is any other site having such rules, forcing people to delete their content for which they are paid (from ads of course), they should also have a high penalty after proving loses in court.
So when we speak about fines the previous ones that EU court demanded were terribly too small. Few millions for company of this size does not hurt. Itās like taking few USD from every thief and letting them sell everything they steal. Penalty needs to hurt and for activities made among many years they simply have to be bigger than companyās revenue.
In normal case decisions should be done very fast to prevent such loses, but the damage was already done and there are 2 cases. First when the penalty is too small and does not change a thing and second one which in fact forces to bankrupt, because company canāt pay for accumulated over years damages. As said I have no idea if this specific value is good or not, but a huge penalty should be done - of course after court decides that such activity is illegal.
Where did I said that Iām happy. Please stop putting in my mouth things I didnāt said. They amount is crazy, but itās the same for the loses as written above. I didnāt change position as well.
The guy who says is not an analogy. You are putting words I didnāt said. The sentence is affirmative.
Are you reading what I wrote or imagine what I wrote? In next paragraph I described that itās obvious that investors need to count the risk. Even if there is small possibility for it to happen.
Many of your responses are not arguments. You keep to talk about empty idealism and that Iām crazy, because I said that market and all tech would not magically disappear after BigTech companies would bankrupt. Again hardware would be sold out to other companies and investors would remember it and count such risks differently. You would not change that calling people crazy.a market with such a comments.
For sure many companies have relations and use BigTech, but the market existed before it and would exist in different form after said BigTech companies would bankrupt. The companies and investors would adapt to new situation. Things would not be the same, but again it would just change and we would not magically everything. If that would be true we would not need courts. A simple DDoS attack on Wikipedia would magically cancel all our knowledge and tech. Thatās insane way of thinking.
Of course dear god, the only judge ā¦ Itās as you said ā¦ ignore facts and be closed in your bubble.
I did not know about that. So ā¦ for example in Polish People's Republic whe chocolate was not on the market and gangs smuggled it from the west every company and investor went underground and did not pay any taxes, hmm? I would like to know who paid police, doctors, fire fighters and so on ā¦
Whole market would not go underground, because some companies had too big penalties. I heard about many people who had too big penalties and guess what ā¦ everyone were paying taxes as they did before such decisions. Do you trust the politicians when they said that they would give up on their position in government because some law would not be introduced? There is at least one politician who said that. Guess what? Nothing changed.
Going underground is not so easy as you think. How do you imagine forcing all your workers to go underground. One of the basics when you make crime is to make sure that nobody who does not need to know about it have no idea what you do. Often people hide it from family and you think that Google would suddenly be the biggest trademark in darknet?
Oh, so if I would suddenly stop paying taxes and would buy very expensive cars then nobody would be interested, right? If the market would go underground and not pay taxes then country would fall. Even in sci-fi or fantasy stories there is no world with a government and whole market underground. This simply does not work.
I return those words to you.
Well if such scale of deleting videos and banning channels is not enough for you then why you care about this fine? This seems nothing to you. I already wrote how retroactive rule affected everyone who uses YouTube. If this is not enough for you letās stop this conversation.
and then you quote:
I have no idea about the real situation. What law is in Russia making such deletion illegal. Maybe they used what I wrote about retroactive rule and maybe they used dozens of different unfair practices/rules that are illegal in Russia (there were a lot of EU court decisions about their monopoly and related to it unfair practices). As said I have no idea about a total damages they did. There were again decisions of EU court about millions of EUR as penalty that were commented for being way too small. So those standalone proven in EU courts (if they are too low) could be counted in billions already and Iām not sure if it would be counted in billions if we sum all of the EU court decisions. Probably nobody can judge the real lose done for all users. Itās definitely amount you would we would never see (not even talking about owning it).
As said no matter what was the reason in Russia. The real damages could be on this level.
None? They did it on their own? Thatās really funny. In theory there are sanctions for Russia, but in reality we here that Google still operates there as not existing entity in Russia would not bankrupt. Isnāt avoiding sanctions enough to prove that such companies are in obvious conflict with law? Do you still believe that the market would go underground? As we can see they donāt have to ā¦
i.e. no company have officially laws with as high precedence as countries
i.e. we think Iām wrong, so:
You are completely lost. When Iām saying that companyās (site) rules are the lowest laws you disagree with me, so assuming that you are right is that Google owns some country as therefore Google is controlling the highest laws including constitution. For some reason you put in my mouth that Google owns Russia.
I would like to ask you the same ā¦
Someone may understand that as people in Russia are not humans and therefore donāt have human rights as thatās the only way Google does zero crimes except banning. Please take a look about many of EU court decisions. Those standalone proves that banning an āone or twoā accounts is nothing comparing to other things they did. This does not stops you from saying zero crimes.
Iām not? In first quote I said may be the right penalty. In second one I said I would not be surprised if such amount is in fact real. In both cases I clearly state that I have no idea about all damages Google has done. I never declared that this amount is real or fair comparing to loses Google made. Can you stop putting words I didnāt said in my mouth?
No I donāt and I never asked you for any cent. Stop using affirmation about me claiming itās ājust an analogyā.
Thatās only your logic and I never agreed or declared something like that.
Fine, from now on you canāt work in IT. For sure you are smart and get job easily in other branch, can you? Thatās what in fact you said for thousands of banned people. Again you still focus on Russia and I on overall Googleās situation.
Itās funny that you ignore all the context trying to protect company that commit crime (again decided also by court in EU). For all that time you put in my mouth things I donāt say and tries to give wrong analogy to forum. Did you invested lots of money in Google or something like that?
The correct analogy is that:
I have no idea if a murderer is a thief. Maybe the decision about stealing stuff is a final penalty for all of the crimes they did. I would not be surprised if that would be true. I donāt care if this or another government did anything here as even in more than one country at least part of their crimes were proven.
Thatās what I said and thatās a good analogy.
Again, maybe you have too big ego to understand that I would not lose anything if you would personally block me on forum. As long as I can post (while not breaking forum rules) I honestly donāt care and therefore itās a bad analogy. More than that, you write it in affirmative form which may be seen as an attack.
Both sides of conflict have a dark history. Most probably it would be better for world if those would never exist (saying about country or company and not about people). Therefore there is no need to protect them. Thatās not a precedent if we are fine with taking all of the money from a thief as same as giving hundreds of years as a penalty to a murderer.
That should end the topic. 
Canāt we all just get along? 
2 Likes
More excuses again. You canāt prove Google was guilty so now you are mentioning suicide. And you say, I am naive and illogical?
I agree with this. But it doesnāt add anything to our conversation. Gather your thoughts and make a proper argument.
So this is why you wanted me fined 1 trillion dollars for blocking you? Makes sense now. Penalties need to hurt, even if they are IRRATIONAL or financial NON-EXISTENT or UNFAIR. This logic is out of this world.
When cornered, you love denying, explaining and defending. It is funny.
You seem to not understand what an analogy is. If you want me to explain it to you, ask me kindly.
Are you also reading what I wrote or just dreaming things out of your head? Read the next response below.
The response is clear. But knowing how stubborn you are, you will try to make some story or excuse as to how this is ok. A clear indicator that you have never done business or any form of entrepreneurship.
Many of your responses are not arguments either. They are empty ideals based on false hypotheses which canāt be proven. If your ideas were so smart and workable, they would have been attempted many years ago and we would be seeing the results today. They havenāt and if they have been tried, they have failed which is why things are the way they are today.
Okay then go and seize Googleās hardware and sell it to other investors and countries. You are near Russia, right? Fly there, seize the hardware and sell it.
You would not change a real world with empty ideals and crazy arguments then get angry when you are confronted with facts and reality.
In other words itās okay to bankrupt BigTech companies so the market can continue in a different form? After all everyone would evolve and adaptā¦ 
You are a programmer: what happened to backups and/or replication?
He runs to God after being confronted with reality. Right back to you: continue living in a dream world and ignore reality. The facts will shatter you ideals and bring you to your knees.
If smuggling is illegal, how, when and why would a smuggler pay taxes? How many smugglers do you know who pay taxes? If smugglers pay taxes, then why would they have to smuggle it? And you claim to be logical? What kind of logic is this?
The dark web is underground.
Google only indexes 20% of the web. The dark net is much bigger. You have no point. There is actually a big market for a search engine that indexes the web. https://www.wired.com/2015/02/darpa-memex-dark-web/
You keep dodging the point of the market/company shifting elsewhere apart from going underground. What are you scared of? Why havenāt you addressed this? Donāt be scared, I wonāt bite.
More illogical nonsense.
See above: I also return your words back to you.
Why do you care as well. You are so happy and excited about it, to the point that you would gladly fine me 1 trillion dollars just because I blocked you and defend yourself using retroactive laws and some other gibberish. Terrible.
Iām ready for you any day and anytime. If you want to quit, quit. You arenāt making any sense either way.
If you have no idea about the real situation then why are you defending it?
So if you canāt judge the real loss, you decide to issue an even crazier amount that is impossible to pay? Brilliant logic.
Once again defending illogical fines. No facts, no theory, just feelings and ideals.
As per this source: #LeaveRussia: Google Closed its Business in Russia and I quote: āThe actual status of Google is hard to evaluate, since its services still work in Russia, but without generating any revenue.ā Given the sanctions, Google is actually doing Russians a favour by allowing them to access some of these services. Iran, South Sudan and many other countries donāt have access to many American companies products.
Who said they did?
Because you canāt explain things properly. You use so many words, strange examples and canāt get straight to the point. If you confuse me, how do you expect me to understand?
Itās up there, along with the 1 trillion dollar fine you want me to pay just for blocking you.
Provide proof of Googleās crimes and compare them to the crimes of human rights that other countries, leaders and people have done. I am waiting.
We already discussed this before and I said that: you canāt hate people on the basis of the decisions of their government. Therefore no one should say all Russians are monsters because of the actions of their government. Life and logic doesnāt work that way. We already agreed on this so why are you bringing it back up again?
So it is right, and you agree but you are not sure? It is real, but you are not sure if it is real? You have no idea but you think it is right? Arenāt you confused?
From complaining about me putting words in your mouth to evidence showing that you said, Google is huge and is able to make damages/pay $20 decillion. Whose ego is big here? Whoās the liar?
Hahaha if you are ok with Google with paying that crazy amount for then you are ok with fining me a similar amount for a strange reason. Haha
Life is not fair. If they canāt work in IT, let them go to other fields. Why force yourself where you are not wanted?
I should ask you the same question, did you invest a lot of money in Russia as well? Is there a particular Russian streamer who gives you a cut of his earnings and now your income has reduced to zero as a result of the ban so you are angry at Google?
If you have no idea, and you donāt care then why are you commenting? Why did you even start this conversation?
Terrible analogy because by responding to me, you clearly do care even though you have no idea.
Again maybe you also have a too big ego to understand that I would lose everything if you fined me 1 trillion dollars for as vengeance for me blocking you. Yes itās that bad.
As long as Google can allow services in Russia without making any revenue then they are not breaking any laws, right? So why should anyone including the government care and why fine them?
You also write in affirmative form which maybe seen as an attack. If my ego is big like you say it is then maybe yours is even bigger?
I donāt get it. Blocking and banning accounts isnāt so dark as to merit a 20 decillion fine. But hey, you do you.
Be careful, you also āwrite in affirmative form which maybe seen as an attackā
So in this context: Google is the thief and Russia is the murderer? Why do you have to be so harsh over a fine and the blocking of accounts? Itās not that deep, you know.
With your final words of conclusion, I think you just started another topicā¦ 
I would really like to, but itās hard to talk with someone who puts in your mouth things you did not say and act like a judge of everything. Thatās most probably a god complex. If thatās a case I guess that I should not even react to it, so yeah ā¦ my bad. Iām sorry you have to see this. 
In last years money and politics arouse emotions way too much. @AstonJ could you please close this topic?
Hard to do so when people are scared of hard conversations which they started.
The judge of everything decided I was naive and called me crazy.
Given that you use ānaiveā when anyone who disagrees with you then maybe you have an inferiority complex?
@AstonJ please close this topic as requested. I got hit and hit back harder so now I am an unrighteous villain and Eiji is the poor victim.