I do it all the time. Good luck enforcing that I'm in Brazil.

>>51746036

It's a US law so you're fine.

Are they going to sue the entirety of the consumer internet market?

They can't seriously expect to make dynamic IPs illegal.

Jannies will enjoy this

>dynamic ip addresses are illegal
Haha haha

It's not "designed" to evade it, it's just what happens when you have more customers than ip addresses. All isps do this.

In Australia, the law courts typically side with isps over these sort of issues, which makes sense: why would you want a private, foreign corporation dictating policy in Australia? Basically, the isps cannot be expected to police the internet, that's not their job, and the isps cannot be expected to protect another companies assets, that's against competition laws.

Meanwhile, our law enforcement agencies don't need a warrant for your internet history. I guess who do you trust more, a government agency that wants to enforce the law or a private multinational that has described its users as "dumb fucks"?

>>51746597
>Meanwhile, our law enforcement agencies don't need a warrant for your internet history.
Did you mean to make this sound like it's a good thing?

>>51746647
It's not. I know it's not.

Would you rather Facebook enforces it's bans through your isp? Seriously, pick, government or private enterprise.

>tfw your IP doesn't change after unplug

T-thanks Cox.

>>51746714
learn how dhcp works, most isps will not hand out a new ip just from simply resetting the modem

is it possible to change ip's on an unsecured network (wifi hotspot)?

i'm guessing no

>>51745948
Facebook is Normieville. You can expect all kind of gay restrictions there. Why bother to use that shit anyway.

>>51745948
Okay, do that. Even if i was banned for some mod power trip I would be happy to do it.

But on one condition, facebook must from this point forward properly comply with united states and european tax and privacy laws.

But i see no one chasing that.

>>51747869
Sick bags at the ready: Facebook has a billion users, UK income of over £100 million – and a tax bill just under £5,000, lower than most British workers.

So how does Facebook do it – and why is it legal?

It’s all about the difference between tax ‘avoidance’ (which is legal), and tax ‘evasion’, which is illegal.

What is the difference between tax avoidance and evasion?

Generally speaking, tax avoidance involves using legal means to pay the lowest possible tax – but this can turn into tax evasion if you have a deliberate plan not to pay the tax due.

Tax evasion is when people or companies under-report income, or use illegal schemes to avoid paying tax.

Tax avoidance is also frowned on – but uses legal schemes (such as the so-called ‘Double Irish’ strategy, below), to reduce corporation tax.

How do companies get away with paying so little?

So-called ‘Double Irish’ tax avoidance strategies are used to ‘shift’ profits from higher tax countries to lower tax ones.

Companies often use several different corporate entities within the larger, overall company, so that, for instance, an electronic purchase initiated in the UK is ‘completed’ in Ireland or Luxembourg.

This is perfectly legal under UK law.

Is Facebook the only company that pays low tax in the UK?

No. Many large Silicon Valley companies pay very little tax in the UK, including Starbucks and US technology firms Apple and Microsoft.

Google made £3.4 billion of revenues in the UK last year but paid just just £20.4 million in corporation tax.

A number of other companies, including, also pay little tax.

How much money does Britain lose every year?

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) released figures last October estimating the gap between the amount of tax collected and the sum owed had grown to £34 billion.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/12/heres-why-its-legal-for-facebook-to-pay-less-than-5000-in-british-tax-5434871/

>>51747936
Facebook Paid A Negative 40.4 Percent Tax Rate In 2012: Analysis
Posted: 04/11/2013 12:06 pm EDT Updated: 04/12/2013 10:23 pm EDT
Print

Here’s something to “Like" if you're Facebook: getting a tax rebate despite pulling in billions in profits.

The social media giant paid a negative 40.4 percent tax rate in 2012, according to a report released Thursday by the Center for Tax Justice, a left-leaning research group. That’s way less than the estimated $1 billion tax bill of the company’s own CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg. How did Facebook manage to get $429 million back from the government on its more than $1 billion in profits? By writing off the value of the stock options the company gave Zuckerberg as part of his compensation, according to CTJ.

As Businessweek explains, this practice is perfectly legal. For tax purposes, corporations are allowed to treat executive stock options the same way they would treat regular compensation -- as an expense that cuts their profits. Facebook relied on just this break to reduce its tax burden in 2012, according to CTJ, and the company is able to do so because so much of its executive pay comes in the form of stock options.

A Facebook spokeswoman said in an emailed statement to The Huffington Post that in its early years, the company offered potential employees stock options as part of their compensation "in lieu of the cash it did not yet have," which the company says helps explain the company's broader tax situation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/facebook-tax-rate_n_3060562.html