Compelling people to work for you against their will is not even close to the definition of slavery. It's informally part of the definition, but that's like saying the definition of an apple is "red food". It's an oversimplification.
The closest thing this case would have been to is coercion - the threat of force in order to get the other party to enter into a contract. It's still very much illegal, but let's not act like Redditors and destroy the English language just to prove a point.
Compelling people to work for you against their will is not even close to the definition of slavery. It's informally part of the definition, but that's like saying the definition of an apple is "red food". It's an oversimplification.
The closest thing this case would have been to is coercion - the threat of force in order to get the other party to enter into a contract. It's still very much illegal, but let's not act like Redditors and destroy the English language just to prove a point.
EDIT: Looks like some tranny at Twitter didn't like his take, because I cannot see any of his tweets on Nitter and on Twitter his page redirects to the homepage.
Compelling people to work for you against their will is not even close to the definition of slavery. It's part of the definition, but that's like saying the definition of an apple is "red food". It's an oversimplification.
The closest thing this case would have been to is coercion - the threat of force in order to get the other party to enter into a contract. It's still very much illegal, but let's not act like Redditors and destroy the English language just to prove a point.
EDIT: Looks like some tranny at Twitter didn't like his take, because I cannot see any of his tweets on Nitter and on Twitter his page redirects to the homepage.
Compelling people to work for you against their will is not even close to the definition of slavery. It's part of the definition, but that's like saying the definition of an apple is "red food". It's an oversimplification.
The closest thing this case would have been to is coercion - the threat of force in order to get the other party to enter into a contract. It's still very much illegal, but let's not act like Redditors and destroy the English language just to prove a point.
EDIT: Looks like some tranny at Twitter didn't like this take, because I cannot see any of his tweets on Nitter and on Twitter his page redirects to the homepage.
Compelling people to work for you against their will is not even close to the definition of slavery. It's part of the definition, but that's like saying the definition of an apple is "red food". It's an oversimplification.
The closest thing this case would have been to is coercion - the threat of force in order to get the other party to enter into a contract. It's still very much illegal, but let's not act like Redditors and destroy the English language just to prove a point.