Internet? Nothing gets done on the internet/it's mostly a waste/a lot of talking. Constitutions and charters? Those existed then and didn't stop anything.
This is both true and missing the point. Laws are enacted (talk about a vast vast scale here, obviously we have a issue with corruption right now) via public opinion. Which can get itself known via the internet. Both laws and the internet are vastly powerful tools for good, but they need to be used. Which is what is going on right now. This topic is just a small part of the groups among the internet that talk about these things. It is part of the machine that can change or enhance peoples thoughts and eventually change laws. This topic itself is part of what changes laws. And then the laws are enacted for protection/exploitation depending on what made them. After all, if laws are useless, then what are you arguing for? You become no better then a blinded Libertarian who thinks everyone can perfectly protect themselves.
Unless we're talking about being forced to work against one's will and without pay or remuneration, 'economic slavery' is gross hyperbole and an insult to those who actually suffered under real slavery.
Okay. First off. It is in no way a gross hyperbole. I have not defined it at all, and so thus calling it as such at best you are straw manning me, and at worst you are stupid. It could be hyperbole. But in this case it is not. The simple thing I am saying is that economic slavery is a bad thing and it can exist. Once you want to argue those points you are free to, otherwise I insist you get your head from your backside.
Secondly: A insult? How is it a insult? At all? In anyway. The simple fact is it shares some characteristics (IE doing something you do not wish to do for someone else on threat.) Thus it shares a word. Not that they are the same thing in every way. And, even finishing with that, even if it is a insult. That does not mean it is not a issue. If you can convince me it is a insult I will use some other word for it, but the underlying fact of whether it is bad changes not a ounce.
And accepting that society has changed in fundamental ways over the course of 3000 years is also reasonable. If I am now wearing a helmet, running into a wall probably won't hurt as much.
Although there is a ring of truth in this, you forgot that the fundamental change is being shown in this case. The change you are claiming will defend us is exactly what you are fighting against, the idea that the company was wrong. That is your change. The fact that you are arguing against it shows two things. One, your argument is somewhat schizophrenic and incoherent. The change you belive will defend us is not set and stone and without us defending it it can and will revert.
voluntarily (important)
That is the whole point of this. The fact is, it is not voluntarily. If you don't think that, go back to some of the arguments you have flat out ignored (such as economic slavery) and argue against them.
Lulz at ignoring every argument against you with a no not true then running away.