> That definition includes exactly all of the relevant features to this discussion. Groups of people with leadership. How they relate to each other. Which is n

> That definition includes exactly all of the relevant features to this discussion. Groups of people with leadership. How they relate to each other. Which is not what a government is. > Focus on the material of the discussion, and perhaps it will seem less useless a definition. The whole discussion is based on the idea that just because Facebook has rules and somebody in charge, it's equivalent to the government of a state and should be thought about as such. That's absolutely absurd unless you think that every association of people in which someone is dominant or customs exist has its own "government". Pointing that out is focusing on the "material of the discussion".