Visa's marketing opt-out has been down for over a week. Is this a legal issue?

What exactly are these stages?

The original answers to "late?", "collapse?, and "what's next?" questions all require recalling that the term originated in Marxist circles.

The "late" meant something like the type of capitalism that emerged out of ww2, characterized primarily by post-colonial global trade networks. That's quite a bit in the past for us, but "late" by the standards of an ideological tradition that started in the 1800s. Even still, of all your questions, this is the one that has changed meanings perhaps the least in the last 80 years or so. That's because a lot of the things that characterized "late stage capitalism" in the mid 20th century are still with us, and perhaps intensified. If it helps, think of "late stage" as "post-colonial + globalization + financialization". In contrast to the much more mixed political economies of Europe in the 1800s. Or, for an even more modern usage, you might read it as "jet-setting billionaires and the MBAs that manage their factories and open offices". That's the vibe it's supposed to give off, I think.

The "collapse?" and "what's next?" questions sort of have standard Marxist answers (or, at least, standard delineated lines of debate within mid-century Marxism, from what I understand). Careful dispassionate reading the Communist Manifesto... like, the way you would read Plato or Hegel or whatever... can give you a general sense for why "collapse" plays an important role in Marxist theories and what Marxists generally suspect is "next". (Namely, alienation of workers and a resulting violent revolution of the working class against folks who own/control capital.)

nb, I'm not really sure that most people using the term now have much -- if any -- background in Marxist economics/philosophy. I think for the average user, these terms function roughly the same way as "critical race theory" does on the social right. If that makes sense.

So, the "late" retains real descriptive meaning relative to 1800s/early 1900s capitalism, but the "collapse" and "what's next?" have sort of drifted from their original answers and probably play a more rhetorical than literal role these days. Like CRT. No one knows what they mean. They are shibboleths for "change is needed and inevitable", with no specifics for what or how.

Hope that helps.

> When has power ever been limited?

The question isn't really whether power has been "limited" (it's unclear to me what that would even mean, honestly), but the form in which it is constituted and what institutions it rests with. Like, it's pretty clear that the institutions which control and manage daily life and politics in 21st century America are of a much different character than the ones of the mid-20th century USSR, which are again much different than, say, 16th century Europe or what have you.

> did the Roman’s not have this problem?

I'm relatively confident that Roman society did not have to contend with the accumulation of power by multi-national corporate bodies and the relative weakening of democratic institutions that results, nor the degree to which such corporations are able to leverage 21st century technology to exert control over individuals' lives.

> with no ability to opt-out.

That is the key. Does the web page being down mean that there is no way to opt out? Or is it just more difficult? The page you linked says: "Give a return email address or another easy Internet-based way to allow people to communicate their choice to you." Take note of the "or" in that statement.

So as long as they check replies within 10 days, they seem to be OK. If they fail to do so, maybe there is a problem. FWIW, I'm in agreement that this link being down is not good. But there is not enough info to hazard even guessing whether this is a violation of law.

This isn't Instagram either, can you clarify what this is supposed to mean?