Bitcoin Forum
July 22, 2019, 10:55:48 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Anunymint ban  (Read 2982 times)
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1717



View Profile WWW
July 29, 2018, 09:42:50 PM
 #81

It is absolutely ridiculous to explicitly say (as Maxwell has said) that it is acceptable to ban people because you do not like them, or because many people do not like them.

Nice strawman. Please give the actual quote word for word where he said that, instead of just saying that he said it.
[...] AnonyMint was banned [...]

AnonyMint [...] is responsible for a significant fraction of the technically competent people becoming largely inactive.


People who are really savvy with the technology have valuable time (as is the case for anyone with valuable skills).  It's a waste of that time to spend it in a place where there are decent odds of their efforts being buried under a mountain of abusive nonsense.   Even those few who don't find his dishonest practices extremely annoying are forced to admit that it's just a waste of time to be in the same venue as someone like that.

[...] AnonyMint's consistent conduct year after year is especially demoralizing. [...]

If a community can't choose [...] participants [...].

You can read the rest of his quote and see he clearly does not like Anunymint.


Further, it is difficult to take his post seriously when Greg's actions/behavior at Wikipedia have been described as "vandalism" by his peers at Wikipedia. Some have claimed that Greg continues to have a positive professional relationship with the admins at Wikipedia, however I have not seen evidence of this, nor have I seen anyone to claim to have affirmative direct knowledge of this.  

Okay... So what did he change on wikipedia that was "vandalism"?
See this and read for yourself.



As previously mentioned, Anunymint seems to have agreed to abide by the forum rules, which appears to have met the condition of unbanning him imposed by theymos.

Click Here to See Alex Morgan Twerking||2nd Video
(Videos Suchmoon doesn’t want you to see)
1563792948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563792948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563792948
Reply with quote  #2

1563792948
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563792948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563792948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563792948
Reply with quote  #2

1563792948
Report to moderator
1563792948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563792948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563792948
Reply with quote  #2

1563792948
Report to moderator
Shelby_Moore_III_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 3


View Profile
July 30, 2018, 12:47:53 AM
Last edit: February 20, 2019, 05:30:13 AM by Shelby_Moore_III_
 #82

Stop evading your bans and appeal for your ban like everybody else. you are not better than anybody, you are a man like several billion men living on earth.

Sorry but not all men are created equal. Yours is the SJW egalitarianism mayonnaise which I wrote about in my post on the prior page of this thread. Westerners are stuck in that ideological shit which is going to drag them back down to a third world clusterfuck if someone doesn’t press the abort switch. And Bitcoin was precisely created to destroy egalitarianism, politics, and promote meritocracy instead. I work a 100 hours a week (although not or not productively while I had been ill with Tuberculosis for 5 – 6 years and the recovery from treatment in 2017). I have done that for significant stretches of my 40 years as a programmer. I have specialized applicable skills, knowledge, and experience. Presumably many of you don’t have those skills and/or don’t work with that same level of intensity.

You seem to not have comprehended the part where I conveyed that I presumed I have been singled-out for temp-banning because you shills wanted to silence me.

And no, I am not going to beg for you or @theymos to undo what his corrupt shit should never have done in the first place. Hell no. I am going to destroy and replace your corrupt shit. Competition is more fun (and more productive) than begging. Corruption can presumably be subtle where the purveyor of corruption doesn’t even think they’re doing corruption. I presume for example that Bill Gates thought all of his monopolistic business practices were the reality of free market competition. And I might even be swayed that was the case if I had time to study all the details of that case. This is a privately owned website and they’re certainly able to do whatever they want to do with their business. And we’re free to compete with them and try to make something we think would serve the market better.

Also I’m not going to endorse a corrupt or dysfunction bureaucratic mechanism which wastes my time. It’s akin to the masochism of choosing to remain as a tourist in a country that wastes our time in bureaucratic crap. Smart people leverage jurisdictional arbitrage, which is what for example the Internet and now Bitcoin facilitate.

I explained clearly up-thread starting from the first post by my prior account (which was banned for posting in Meta!) why I thought the temp-bans were corrupt from the start, which is why I never respected them (even though I have hence inhibited myself from consecutive posting and multi-posting because I didn’t see any significant reason not to). I also clearly explained that “the rules” aren’t working as most of the software engineers are leaving or do not visit as often ostensibly because of the trolling and lower quality discussions. I also argued that “the rules” seem to exist as an arbtrary, subjective construct to enable corrupt collusion between moderators and shills who can presumably buyoff @theymos and the mods. Or maybe it’s is just or also involves an ego battle between those who don’t like me to stick my head too high above the poppies (which btw is an Asian cultural thing now ostensibly being adopted in the West).

Clearly humans want a forum which is gamified. There’s so much political gamesmenship ongoing. So I want to give them what they want in a leveled playing field, in way that will also enable those who want serious, sober discussion to form their own circles. Life is also a game.

And what ever happened to those $100s of millions of BTC (current valuation) that @theymos raised to improve the forum and ostensibly never did.

Also your tactics are nakedly obvious to me. You want me to submit to a corrupted construct so then you can use that construct to temp-ban me when ever you do not like the information I am successfully bringing to the attention of readers. By employing corrupted temp-bans as a means of inducing me to evade the corruption and then perma-ban me because I evaded the useless, corrupted construct.

Nah man. It’s an opaque, centralized, subjective, politicized clusterfuck that needs to be replaced with a decentralized, trustless, transparent, objectivized algorithmic construct.

Politics and social consensus are the antithesis of Satoshi’s Bitcoin. And you Core bunny rabbits are going to learn this the hard way by living out your retirement years in trailer parks instead of collecting Lambos (that is if you HODL all your wealth in SegWit addresses instead of legacy addresses).


Here follows the details of the manipulation of Russia and Russian year 2000 elections by bribing and entraping Yeltsin with a $7 billion IMF loan (to remodel the Kremlin), then threatening to expose Yeltsin if he didn’t resign and endorse a certain person for the presidency. Yeltsin was forced to turn to former KGB Putin for assistance. Tangentially the IMF was allegedly also involved in 9/11.

https://i.imgur.com/L3FSdBm.jpg
(click for image & discussion about destruction of court documents on 9/11/2001 at WTC7 demolition)

Chapeau, Mr Browder! Hats off for this incredible man. Last month, he succeeded in stopping a film screening in the European parliament and took off a few articles from American web sites. This week, he turned the only US screening of a film critical to his version of events into a ruckus. No freedom of speech for his enemies! His lawyers prowl around and issue summons to whoever digs in his sordid affairs. His hacks re-wrote his Wikipedia entry, expunging even discussions of the topic: despite hundreds of edits, nothing survived but the official version.



What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This is probably a uniquely Jewish quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures. The Arabs will spend more on horses and jets, the Russians prefer real estate, the Jews like politicians. The Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they present alleged evidence of money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by Browder’s structures officially to the senators and congressmen in order to promote the Magnitsky Act.



Enter Mr Andrey Nekrasov, a Russian dissident filmmaker. He made a few films considered to be highly critical of Russian government. He alleged the FSB blew up houses in Moscow in order to justify the Chechnya war. He condemned the Russian war against Georgia in 2008, and had been given a medal by Georgian authorities. He did not doubt the official Western version of Browder-Magnitsky affair, and decided to make a film about the noble American businessman and the brave Russian lawyer fighting for human rights. The European organisations and parliamentarians provided the budget for the film. They also expected the film to denounce Putin and glorify Magnitsky, the martyr.

However, while making the film, Mr Nekrasov had his Road to Damascus moment. He realised that the whole narrative was hinging on the unsubstantiated words of Mr Browder. After painstaking research, he came to some totally different conclusions, and in his version, Browder was a cheat who run afoul of law, while Magnitsky was his sidekick in those crimes.

Nekrasov discovered an interview Magnitsky gave in his jail. In this interview, the accountant said he was afraid Browder would kill him to prevent him from denouncing Browder, and would make him his scapegoat.

The Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes has been pulled from everywhere. You do not ban a film in Europe and the United States if it is wrong. This is perhaps a huge cover-up that goes really beyond comprehension. The film was funded by ZDF TV in Europe and they have the power to prevent it from being shown despite the fact that they are taking a huge loss. They would not do that unless there was political pressure behind it.

Trump canceled his meeting with Putin he said until this “Russian witchhunt is over.” The Magnitsky Act is being expanded throughout the West. Canada in 2017 passed its version of the Magnitsky Act. Denmark and Sweden moved for versions of the Magnitsky Acts. Estonia voted to ban entry to foreigners deemed guilty of human rights abuses in a law targeting Russia and inspired by the Magnitsky case. We also have versions of the Magnitsky Act adopted in Britain, Lithuania, and Latvia. This is clearly not to help Browder get his money back. This is the start of a narrative that is trying to convince everyone in the West that Russia is the dark enemy and then we MUST go to war to annihilate them once and for all. This is the script that is being sold to justify war.

[…]

It also makes no sense WHY would Congress enact the Magnitsky Act to try to get money back for Browder who resigned his American citizenship. They have also used the Magnitsky Act to keep adding people who have absolutely no connection to Magnitsky. The case is far more than just Browder. That is what Putin is seeking access to in the USA.

Is this to protect the justification for war with Russia? Even Merkel in Germany said she feared that  Putin would interfere in the German elections, which never took place. The entire socialist agenda is collapsing. Those in power have NO way to prevent it. The only way that they see to reset the world economy is another war? So pay attention. The peak is probably around 2027.

[…]

The ONLY reason the Magnitsky Act has any traction is that it demonizes Russia and sets the stage for war. That is why this film was shut down in Europe and the USA/Canada. It exposes the lie behind the whole affair. They have used Magnitsky’s death to justify war.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/cnn-confirmed-money-was-stolen-from-imf/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/so-who-really-tried-to-blackmail-yeltsin-takeover-russia-nsa-cia-or-investment-bankers/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/the-media-complete-ignores-putins-request-to-interrogate-us-officials-about-interfering-in-russia/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/magnitsky-act-the-strange-backdrop/

https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/agent-william-f-browder-smoking-gun/ri13858

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/why-is-former-ambassador-refusing-to-be-questioned-by-russians/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/interview-on-the-magnitsky-film/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/magnitsky-act-is-back/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/magnitsky-affair-the-murder-of-edmond-safra-in-monaco/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/the-3rd-film-on-the-magnitsky-affair/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong-in-the-media/the-forecaster/gag-orders-cover-ups/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/russiagate-the-slow-drip-of-the-coup-to-take-over-russia/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/russia-starts-criminal-investigation-of-browder-while-us-deep-state-protects-him/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/dominick-dunn-death-in-monaco/

While these remarks are deeply offensive, what they really reveal is how much EU officials prefer to promote propaganda as well and create their own FAKE NEWS to distract people from reality.

EDIT (Sept 10, 2018): https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/deep-state-using-discredit-strategy-to-drive-trump-from-office-to-what-end/

EDIT (Sept 12, 2018):

Once again, they seem to be scared to death that the truth about the US interference in the Russian 2000 election is what resulted in Yeltsin turning to Putin. Just look at the timeline.

July 1998, Republic Bank alerted authorities about unusually large wire transfers coming through its coffers from Russia.

July 25th, 1998 Yeltsin appointed Putin as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the primary intelligence agency and the successor to the KGB.

August 9th, 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on, that same day he was appointed acting Prime Minister. It was that same day that Putin agreed to run for the presidency.

August 16th, 1999 the State Duma approved Putin’s appointment as Prime Minister. There were opponents who fought hard to prevent Putin’s emergence as a potential successor. Putin had not been formally associated with any party.

August 20th, 1999 Wall Street Journal reports Bank of New York Investigation. They wrote: “It was in late August when the suspicious transfers at Bank of New York were brought to the attention of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation by Republic National Bank of New York, a unit of Republic New York Corp., according to people familiar with the matter. “

August 27th, 1999 Republic National Bank takes our funds, I demand to fly to Geneva to speak to Safra when the head of the bank George Wendler says he is “only the messenger.” This is when I was told Safra fled Geneva and went to Monaco “for security reasons.”

December 3rd, 1999 Edmond Safra dies in Monaco all his bodyguards were given the night off.

December 31st, 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation. Putin also passed that same day the decree made it a law that Yeltsin cannot be charged with corruption which is obvious that there was a problem with the whole Bank of New York and IMF missing funds incident.

January 25th, 2000; Putin consented to compromise with Duma that Yeltsin can be prosecuted for any serious crimes committed while in office with a vote of 275 to 139 on second reading. Yet, Putin would never prosecute Yeltsin.

EDIT (Sept 13, 2018):

There is a very slow flow of incriminating evidence which seems to grow almost daily revealing that FBI and Justice Department officials both worked together with Democrats in the Obama Administration to prevent President Trump’s presidency from getting underway. The whole Russia investigation conducted by Robert Mueller must now come under serious question, and it seems likely that key FBI officials should be charged with crimes. The latest release by Congress of documents late Monday revealed an “apparent systemic culture of media leaking” among top officials at the FBI and Justice Department. This is quoting a letter that North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows sent to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It turns out that FBI official even discussed their “media leak strategy” before making any Trump-Russia revelations.

[…]

This is no longer about Trump – this is about National Security for such people could just as easily be taking bribes from third parties domestic or foreign.

EDIT (Sept 21, 2018):

Well, it was only a matter of time. President Trump on Monday threw a  hand grenade into the center of the Russian investigation that was all started by Hillary blaming the leak of  Democratic Party emails on Russia and Trump colluded with them. The Democrats and Hillary then paid to create the infamous dossier and pretended it was not funded by the Democrats. They have managed to keep the country distracted and that has been the political objective all along – just politics.

Trump has now directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to declassify a number of documents related to the Russia investigation which will be for our reading pleasure and pull the curtain back a little further on just how seriously bad things have gotten in the Washington Swamp. Already the Democrats are screaming say this will put people’s lives at risk. If I recall, the same thing was said about the IRS scandal when the Obama Administration was targeting the Tea Party using the IRS with the silent support of John McCain and John Boehner. They wanted to have Lois Lerner’s testimony sealed claiming death threats – she is still alive.

Trump also directed the release of unredacted versions of all text messages about the probe sent and received by multiple officials, including former FBI Director James Comey and deputy director Andrew McCabe […] Moreover, Trump also instructed the Justice Department to publicly release unredacted versions of all text messages related to the Russia probe of Comey, McCabe, Ohr, and FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who were involved in both the Russia investigation and the probe into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state. The leaks we have seen so far have been showing that they turned a blind eye to Hillary and abused their power to target Trump.
Additionally, he requested that the agencies declassify all FBI reports of an interview with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr that were connected to the Russia probe. Now, this should get interesting. If you remember, Ohr is the person who communicated with former British spy Christopher Steele back in 2016 to compile that dossier of damaging allegations involving Trump and Russia which was used to justify this entire case. Trump wants released information about confidential sources that Steele used while compiling his dossier, as well as Steele’s own history as an FBI source.

EDIT (Feb 20, 2019):

One of the gaping questions that have gone unanswered is why has Mueller not taken Putin up on his offer to go question the Russian intelligence officer he has indicted in Russia? Putin said he would allow Mueller and his team to travel to Russia and be present at the questioning of 12 Russian military intelligence officers the special counsel previously indicted for hacking into the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. Putin wanted to question the former American diplomat, Michael McFaul who was appointed by Obama. Interestingly, it was Senator Chuck Schumer who introduced on 07/19/2018 the resolution to deny Putin to question any Americans including Bill Browder. John McCain, the sponsor of the Magnitsky Act, led the charge among Republicans to support Schumer’s resolution to deny any investigation into the Magnitsky affair. The Senate vote was a resounding 98-0 to deny the questioning of ANY Americans by Russia. This is one of the most curious cover-ups in modern history even after the questionable report that was released on the Trump Tower Meeting that was all about the Magnitsky Act.

The tail gets even more interesting when we look closer at the infamous Trump Tower meeting Mueller has been investigating. Russian-born lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin worked closely with the research firm Fusion GPS which commissioned the infamous Steele Dossier on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC to smear Trump and begin the entire Russia-Gate affair. Interestingly, Akhmetshin also attended the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

Natalia Veselnitskaya was the Russian lawyer who also attended the Trump Tower meeting and in turned US prosecutors later retaliated and charged her with a single count of money laundering.  To add further to all of these coincidences, one of the lawyers involved in the Trump Tower meeting was Scott Balber, who also worked on my case and was familiar with the Russian connection involving Edmond Safra and Republic National Bank and his assassination (Death in Monaco). Yet Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya worked with Fusion GPS in an effort to expose the truth behind the Magnitsky Act. Fusion’s main task was investigating Bill Browder, the London-based financier whose lobbying efforts led to the Magnitsky Act passage. (see also the film Behind the Scenes Magnitsky Act)

I have stated many times that I was asked to invest $10 billion into Hermitage Capital by Republic National Bank. Edmond was the major shareholder. This is the fund that Browder claimed he was Putin’s number one enemy and Magnitsky was not a lawyer but an accountant. There would have been no incentive for Putin to have killed Magnitsky for he would have been a witness against the entire cabal of bankers seeking to take over the Russian government by blackmailing Yeltsin to step down and stuff in their puppet Boris Berezovsky, who flees to London when Putin comes in an amazingly interesting incident hangs himself in Britain (see the movie the Forecaster).

The ultimate client for Fusion GPS, Akhmetshin, and Veselnitskaya was Katsyv, whose firm, Prevezon Holdings, which was sued by the Justice Department for allegedly laundering money stolen during the tax fraud scheme uncovered by Magnitsky. Interestingly, Prevezon’s payments to Akhmetshin and Fusion GPS were routed through its U.S. law firm, BakerHostetler. That arrangement was the mirror-image of its work for the Clinton campaign and DNC. On that project, Perkins Coie, the law firm for the Democrats, paid Fusion GPS $1 million to investigate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. BakerHostetler paid Fusion GPS $523,651 in 2016. Entangled in this entire affair is not just Hillary’s paying Fusion GPS to create the dossier on Trump and the strang banning of Ambassador McFaul appointed by Obama and any possible connections with Fusion GPS. Most interesting is the fact that Bill Browder also donated money to Hillary. He donated $17,700 to Clinton and another $297,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

Also entangled deeply is the Bank of New York Money Laundering case for $7 billion and of course the involvement of Republic National Bank working with people in the US Treasury sending skids of $100 bills to Russia in the affair known as the Money Plane.

Here is what CNN Money wrote on September 1st, 1999 12 days before my case began:

Quote
The saga that’s brought money laundering issues to the fore this summer allegedly began back in 1994, when Russia’s International Monetary Fund representative, Konstantin Kagalovsky, left the organization to join Menatep Bank in Moscow.

Over the next three years, it’s alleged, Kagalovsky arranged to funnel billions of IMF money meant to help transfer Russia’s communist economy into a capitalist one through a private company called Benex Worldwide Ltd. Eventually, the money went into and back out of Bank of New York (BK) and Republic National Bank, a unit of Republic Bancorp (RBNC), as well as several institutions in Europe, including the Union Bank of Switzerland AG and Deutsche Bank AG and its Bankers Trust Unit.

Now the burning question the US press will not address is why does Putin want to question a former American Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who was denied a Russian visa in June 2014 and subsequently banned from entering the country for his supposed “active participation in the destruction of the bilateral relationship and relentless lobbying in favor of a campaign to pressure Russia,” Foreign Ministry officials told Reuters at the time. Essentially, Putin was after U.S. State Department internal memos from 2009 and 2010 drafted in Moscow about the investigation into the Magnitsky case. The Russian agency’s official spokesman, Alexander Kurennoi, told the news agency Interfax that McFaul is one of the Americans suspected of involvement in Browder’s illegal activities alleged by Russia.

Chuck Schumer wants Muller to indict Trump, but he will not allow any investigation into the DNC and Hillary’s involvement in this entire tangled web of intrigue.
Shelby_Moore_III_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 3


View Profile
August 01, 2018, 04:20:51 AM
Last edit: August 05, 2018, 01:22:28 PM by Shelby_Moore_III_
 #83

This is a consecutive posting, but I’ve waited days for someone to reply to the thread before posting again.

My contrarian thoughts on the Singularity thesis (and empathetically humanity at-large) I think ties in with my stance about my ban and my points about corruption which applies to my reasoning for not seeking reinstatement here:

https://www.quora.com/Do-advances-in-AI-mean-that-before-long-we-won-t-need-computer-programmers-as-we-ll-be-able-to-just-ask-a-computer-to-write-me-some-code-that-does-the-following/answer/Shelby-Moore-III

(archived here: http://archive.is/C5xrA)

If there are no further arguments raised in this thread, I suppose this will be my last post on bitcointalk.org. Hopefully.


EDIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/07/the-instagram-forums-where-teens-go-to-debate-big-issues/566153/
thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1004


View Profile
August 01, 2018, 02:06:05 PM
 #84

I dont doubt Core has world class coders. The problem is, bitcoin is much more than that. Does Core have world class game theory and high finance thinkers too? has gmaxwell debated MP and anonymint on the game theory involving segwit long term? or he just points at how "the code is great"?

Why should I even entertain the risk (no matter how small) when I can just keep the cold storage on legacy addresses?
aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 643


View Profile
August 06, 2018, 01:49:29 AM
 #85


If there are no further arguments raised in this thread, I suppose this will be my last post on bitcointalk.org. Hopefully.

Hi Shelby,
Come on dude. Just create a new id and join the discussions man. You can simply put less efforts here but believe me, you would find it useful, occasionally tho.

thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1004


View Profile
August 06, 2018, 02:47:02 AM
 #86

https://theoryofself.com/nuance-in-the-case-for-bitcoin-maximalism-5c4adb064a21


Quote
Even in a long-term equilibrium state different communities may end up converging on different definitions of the ideal money: some favoring immutability while others prefer reversible transactions for example or preferring different trade-offs across security, transaction fees and inflation rate. Where there is consistent demand for a particular definition of money, communities can form Schelling Points and give that kind of money value.

This is especially likely given that humans often do not behave like purely rational economic agents. They despise shipping fees and a-la-carte pricing and they are (relatively) insensitive to inflation and risk. They covet both stability and growth, both security and flexibility. Community loyalty could cause users to value a niche currency even if they understand it to be inefficient, as arguably Dogecoin demonstrates already. Ultimately money is the servant of actual human demand and not economic theory, and so we may see a panoply of currencies thrive even if they don’t necessarily make sense — the economic equivalent of Wile E. Coyote never looking down.

What do you think of this idea of "ideal money may not be an absolute truth"?

edit: I just saw he has abandoned the forum.
Shelby_Moore_III_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 3


View Profile
August 06, 2018, 02:35:55 PM
Last edit: August 08, 2018, 01:48:21 PM by Shelby_Moore_III_
 #87

I was also banned from the Go Github. My antagonists here will probably idiotically mistake that as some validation of their stance. Click the link for some explanation.

Btw, Medium is also presumably nuking very important information about potential false flags corruption.

Even in a long-term equilibrium state different communities may end up converging on different definitions of the ideal money: some favoring immutability while others prefer reversible transactions for example or preferring different trade-offs across security, transaction fees and inflation rate. Where there is consistent demand for a particular definition of money, communities can form Schelling Points and give that kind of money value.

This is especially likely given that humans often do not behave like purely rational economic agents. They despise shipping fees and a-la-carte pricing and they are (relatively) insensitive to inflation and risk. They covet both stability and growth, both security and flexibility. Community loyalty could cause users to value a niche currency even if they understand it to be inefficient, as arguably Dogecoin demonstrates already. Ultimately money is the servant of actual human demand and not economic theory, and so we may see a panoply of currencies thrive even if they don’t necessarily make sense — the economic equivalent of Wile E. Coyote never looking down.

What do you think of this idea of "ideal money may not be an absolute truth"?

edit: I just saw he has abandoned the forum.


I came back over to add some additional information to “Corruption” portion of my up-thread post. I noticed your post and it’s an interesting and very important question which deserves my response, because it drives right into whether I should continue to work on yet another shitcoin. Which perhaps relates to whether I should seek an appeal of my perma-ban (although I think others can act liaisons on this forum for any decentralized ledger project I might be involved with).

Note in a prior blog of his, he pointed out why the real Bitcoin is more valuable in the long-run than the extra features of the Core altcoin:

The existence of Hypecoin implies the existence of Hypecoin-but-with-Bitcoin’s-network, which means Hypecoin and Bitcoin don’t compete by featureset (because features can be freely co-opted) but instead compete strictly on network.[/size]

[…]

The reason the Bitcoin network is so valuable is that Bitcoin has the most wealth, the broadest userbase and the longest history of successful operation. Since money is a network effect good, these advantages are self-reinforcing: a larger network means more liquidity, which attracts more use cases, which strengthens the network.

[…]

The fastest way is slowly
Trust in new financial instruments is slow to build. For those of us considering adopting crypto already it can be hard to understand how slowly this trust will build for most of the world.

[…]

The only way to learn the risks and failure cases of a crypto-economic system is put wealth into it and observe whether anything goes wrong. One of the central reasons that Bitcoin’s featureset is compelling even though it is very limited is because it is battle tested and reliable. Bitcoin has been operating for almost a decade with billions of dollars of value flowing through it and the system continues to operate as intended. The simplicity of Bitcoin and it’s reliability are different aspects of the same quality.

Conversely, the flexibility and featureset of the some of the newer cryptocurrencies is inseperable with their more complex security exposure. You can see this in practice with the Ethereum DOA hack or Parity bug, both of which involved losses in the hundreds of millions of USD and founding members of the Ethereum team. The very qualities that make it easier for Ethereum to do more interesting things also make it harder to be certain exactly what things any given smart contract will do. Trust for every smart contract will need to be bootstrapped individually. Even if the killer app were invented tomorrow it would take a long time to gain any confidence that it was working as intended.

Some argue that the sturm und drang over trying to launch SegWit signal a failure of Bitcoin governance and a counterargument to the reasoning above that Bitcoin could in practice actually adopt the features of a competitor. Personally I see the fact that Bitcoin is challenging to change as a feature, not a bug. Decentralization is the reason for the blockchain’s very existence and a decentralized monetary system should reflect the conservative preferences of the market about adopting new technologies.

It’s not as easy as it looks
The challenges of building a crypto-economy are non-linear. There is considerably more incentive to spam, attack and exploit the market leader than the competitors. Weaknesses in other systems are left unexploited not because they don’t exist but because the targets they protect are not sufficiently valuable to justify the effort. Congestion is lower not because of advantages in scaling but because there is less competition for limited network resources.

Many of the sharpest criticisms against Bitcoin (high fees, for example) are inevitable consequences of a thriving network. Many of the strongest claims of altcoins (strong privacy guarantees, for example) remain essentially untested until they accrue enough significance to be worth trying to defeat. To properly assess the value of a cryptocurrency we must account for the advantages and disadvantages of being / being sheltered by the market leader.


So I’m in agreement with all the points he made in the above blog, so let’s consider the second blog he wrote:

Today I’d like to continue my contrarian impulses by talking about why I don’t think it makes sense to invest in an ICO or startup based on a decentralized application. Decentralized applications (dApps) may very well change the world — but they are very unlikely to make their creators rich. To understand why, it’s helpful to take a step back and understand the basic mechanism that allows entrepreneurs to accrue wealth in the first place: the firm.

Where does shareholder value come from?
Profit is not an automatic side-effect of building a compelling product or having a large customer base. The cotton gin, for example, revolutionized the economy of 19th century America but it never made Eli Whitney rich. It is entirely possible to build a widely used and valuable technology without ever accumulating wealth. That’s because a firm’s profit isn’t based on how useful the technology it builds is, but is instead based on how easy or hard it is for competing firms to enter the marketplace. The easier it is for a new entrant to solve the same problems you are solving, the harder it will be to charge a premium for your products or services.

[…]

As demand for the services provided by the dApp increases, so does demand for token — theoretically providing outsized returns to investors and early adopters who hold token. A nice situation if you can arrange it! But just as with the monopoly firm above, it’s vulnerable to competition. If there are interesting profits for the original holders of token to capture, those profits will attract competition.

In fact it’s even worse for dApps because in order to be decentralized they have to be open source — essentially giving away their core IP for free. That means it’s incredibly easy for a potential competitor to download the dApp codebase, fork it into a new dApp′ with a new token′. Just as above the new dApp′ can underprice the original system, reducing the profit margin and stealing the consumer and supplier bases, since they have no loyalty to the original system beyond the service it provided.

[…]

If your value generation takes place on-chain, it is decentralized. If it is decentralized, you will not be able to use it to extract economic rent.


He is actually arguing above against utility tokens because he makes it clear they have insufficient network effects and allegiance. I also had written before against the viability of utility tokens both from the standpoint of having no network effects and because utility tokens aren’t a cogent exemption from securities regulation.

But he’s not arguing in the second quoted blog above against altcoins which have sufficient network effects. He instead made that argument for Bitcoin maximalism (and thus implicitly against altcoins) in the first quoted blog above. But then in the third blog which you have cited, he has backed off a bit on his claim that it’s impossible for an altcoin to establish a network effect.

Here are my thoughts on his third blog:


Ideal money may not be an objective truth
Money is at its most basic a coordination tool that enables communities to cooperate economically, so it’s value is entirely dependent on the community of users that it serves.

I’ve been making this argument for the past few years. Bitcoin as onchain transacted Ideal Money is ultimately for the community of $billionaires and $trillionaires as an international reserve currency which all other nation-state and highly fungible currencies float against. We will all be kicked off of the real Bitcoin eventually because the transaction fees will rise to $50,000 eventually (of course Bitcoin will be worth north of $250,000 then also though so it depends how many BTC you’re hodling). Security, proven reliability, and immutability are the most important features of the real Bitcoin which becomes the new world reserve currency. It will be the most fungible and liquid asset on the planet by 2032.

But the real Bitcoin will not be a transaction token for the masses. For transactions, we have many competing technologies in play. For example, the Lightning Networks on the Core altcoin is one of the possible altcoins being developed to meet such need.

Lightning Networks will have certain unique attributes:


  • denominated in BTC
  • Mt. Box fractional reserves (users will sometimes lose everything such as was the case for Mt. Gox)
  • inability to transact to every other users on the blockchain
  • inability to seamlessly integrate spending with others actions (e.g. posting a blog post a la Steem) recorded on a blockchain

So there will be other altcoins that attempt to compete with Lightning Networks that improve on some of those unique weakness but they will not be denominated in BTC.

Lightning Networks can’t really remake the Web 3.0. It’s more targeted only on spending without onchain integration required for decentralizing all the centralized databases on the Internet. So I do think some altcoin is going to end up being a major player and eventually in the long-term be more important than Bitcoin as the fungible monetary system fades and the knowledge age Internet system rises. LN is roughly Banking 2.0. Another altcoin could potentially be Internet 2.0.

But most of you will be incapable of analyzing which altcoin that is. You will invariably fall prey to hyped scammy ICOs along the way. And I’m not going to be around here trying to help analyze for the members here. I’ve been shown the door.

As usual, I have some surprises up my sleeve…



I remain of the opinion that such opportunities to extract rent from decentralized applications will be rare and when they exist relatively modest, but I am excited to learn of counterexamples whenever I find them!

It’s not necessary to extract rent from apps, although I think this will also be possible. Rather it’s only necessary to establish a token which has network efforts because of the unique decentralized ledger technology and market features. Others won’t be able to successfully copy that technology because they won’t have the first-mover advantage networks effects that are already established (as is the case for Bitcoin). Steem was open source from the start, yet it established network effects inertia that is hard to overcome. The problem for Steem is they screwed up the technology and the model, which leaves the door wide open still for a competitor.

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: You forgot Bitcoin, as it also broke up above downtrend after July 12
From:    "Shelby Moore"
Date:    Wed, August 8, 2018 9:42 am
To:      Martin Armstrong <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/future-forecasts/ecm/ecm-the-cycle-inversion/

You forgot Bitcoin. Bitcoin has also broken above the downtrend line same
as for the US dollar and Canadian dollar.

This is yet another confirmation for you that Bitcoin is becoming a world
reserve currency.

Continue to ignore this Martin at your peril.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1717



View Profile WWW
August 15, 2018, 06:56:07 AM
 #88

Alex Jones was recently banned from major media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, the Apple Store, and others. These were instituted at nearly the same time. The bans handed down by Facebook and YouTube are in relation to alleged violations of "ban evasion" rules on their respective platforms.

Many in the core of the left wing MSM have championed this corporate censorship as they do not like what Alex Jones has to say, and do not like his ideology.

I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.

It should be noted that it has been alleged that a certain member of the left wing media has put in particular effort into getting Alex Jones banned by various platforms, in part by giving particular scrutiny to each of his posts, and reporting each one accordingly.

It is indisputable these platforms have the right to to ban anyone they choose they do not want to participate in their platforms, however the question remains if doing so is the right thing to do. I think the answer to this question is "no".....

Click Here to See Alex Morgan Twerking||2nd Video
(Videos Suchmoon doesn’t want you to see)
hornetsnest
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 397
Merit: 103


View Profile
August 15, 2018, 11:34:41 AM
 #89



I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.



I was going to merit this above but it looks like I have none to give  Embarrassed
Shelby_Moore_III_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 3


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 12:53:01 PM
Last edit: October 03, 2018, 07:29:18 AM by Shelby_Moore_III_
 #90

I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.

I was going to merit this above but it looks like I have none to give  Embarrassed

Well I agree about the problems of censorship and even the famously accurate technological prognosticator George Gilder in his talk about his book Life After Google explains that that centralization of the Internet backfires on the behemoth fiefdoms and thus isn’t sustainable.

But unfortunately you guys really need to understand that false-flags are staged. I have studied the evidence in great detail (I mean weeks of effort over a period of years). You should really look at the facts more intensely and read my analyses:

Plane Flyover; Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon

https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/succinct-absolute-truth-about-9-11-and-las-vegas-massacre

https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-israel-s-mossad-did-9-11-20180806t173225425z

https://steemit.com/psychology/@anonymint/you-can-t-handle-the-truth

https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/in-t-h-e-f-t-a-n-d-m-a-s-s-a-c-r-e-s-we-trust

For example review my detailed analyses that proves that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. No missle. It was a bomb that was planted. The evidence is overwhelming when you analyse it in detail as I did.

I agree Alex Jones is obnoxious.


P.S. Traxo apparently continues to link in his posts on bitcointalk.org to some of my Steemit posts. It’s impossible to ban information. Defies the laws of thermodynamics (c.f. the bottom of this recent post for more on that point).




EDIT: Tangentially I studied the 9-11 incident in great exhaustive detail. Compare that to for example the EU’s GDPR which I have never read nor thought about for more than about 15 minutes. I have for example written a blog analysing in great detail the facts of the Pentagon venue on that day. And facts that most people are not aware of and are drowned out by the noise of nonsense such a missile attack, etc.. It is quite easy to show that the plane flew over the building and that all other possible explanations are impossible. There was construction ongoing in that section of the Pentagon. It is very simple. A bomb was planted. And I guarantee you that if you review my detailed explanation of the evidence you come to realize that you cannot respect institutions. There is a DEEP STATE of corruption within our institutions. I know this sounds crazy but facts and evidence do not lie. You will be surprised the evidence that is actually available that most people never hear about.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 3719


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 01:13:47 PM
 #91

Alex Jones was recently banned from major media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, the Apple Store, and others. These were instituted at nearly the same time. The bans handed down by Facebook and YouTube are in relation to alleged violations of "ban evasion" rules on their respective platforms.

Many in the core of the left wing MSM have championed this corporate censorship as they do not like what Alex Jones has to say, and do not like his ideology.

I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.

It should be noted that it has been alleged that a certain member of the left wing media has put in particular effort into getting Alex Jones banned by various platforms, in part by giving particular scrutiny to each of his posts, and reporting each one accordingly.

It is indisputable these platforms have the right to to ban anyone they choose they do not want to participate in their platforms, however the question remains if doing so is the right thing to do. I think the answer to this question is "no".....

He can still publish on his own website. I don't see how this impedes his ability to reach his followers. It might impede his ability to gain new followers so basically Twitbook and Facetube decided to not promote him anymore. Although I'm guessing that individual users of those sites can still post his links/videos.

Those platforms ban people all the time, including violations more benign than Alex Jones. Applying rules regardless of some "celebrity" status is the right thing to do.

Shelby_Moore_III_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 3


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 01:28:01 PM
Last edit: August 21, 2018, 03:00:47 PM by Shelby_Moore_III_
 #92

He can still publish on his own website. I don't see how this impedes his ability to reach his followers. It might impede his ability to gain new followers so basically Twitbook and Facetube decided to not promote him anymore. Although I'm guessing that individual users of those sites can still post his links/videos.

You don’t seem to understand that those sites suddenly started doing that because they have to protect themselves due requirements in the recent EU GDPR legislation requiring centrally controlled Internet websites to protect users from hate speech. And that sort of totalitarian legislation might also be coming to the USA when the Democrats get back in power. That is why we absolutely must decentralize all databases and websites via the blockchain.

Please pay attention to the Youtube from George Gilder that I linked in my prior post. He explains how the fiefdoms aren’t sustainable. What we see underway is the coming collapse of Western Civilization before 2033 as the Millennials favor ideology and thus drive the tech sector to leave for greener pastures in Asia:

https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/why-social-media-software-sucks

(above blog links to details on all my above assertions)

All of you should read everything I ever wrote on Steemit on my blog and comment timelines. There is a wealth of information in there that you won’t be getting on bitcointalk.org.

https://steemit.com/@anonymint
https://steemit.com/@anonymint/comments

Especially this!

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever


If you expect everything to be a soundbite, then you will always be ignorant. You must actually read in detail and click every link I provide in order to understand my communications. Millennials have the attention span of a gnat. Which is another reason Western Civilization will collapse within a decade.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 3719


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 03:59:56 PM
Merited by mprep (1)
 #93

You don’t seem to understand that those sites suddenly started doing that because they have to protect themselves due requirements in the recent EU GDPR legislation requiring centrally controlled Internet websites to protect users from hate speech.

GDPR is about privacy and data protection (literally "General Data Protection Regulation"). It does not address hate speech.

Do you have a link to your decentralized blockchain-based website?

Shelby_Moore_III_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 3


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 05:19:26 PM
Last edit: August 20, 2018, 08:37:50 PM by Shelby_Moore_III_
 #94

You don’t seem to understand that those sites suddenly started doing that because they have to protect themselves due requirements in the recent EU GDPR legislation requiring centrally controlled Internet websites to protect users from hate speech.

GDPR is about privacy and data protection (literally "General Data Protection Regulation"). It does not address hate speech.

Do you have a link to your decentralized blockchain-based website?

As I predicted, you can only refute a soundbite and not dig into the links to actually correct your ignorance.

You can’t see beyond the the tip of your nose:


The new European regulations are actually having an impact globally. Alex Jones’ InfoWars has been banned by Apple’s decision to remove five podcasts by Jones and his Infowars website. Other companies have rushed to join including Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify. The general reason is Jones’s podcasts are viewed as “hate content” which can subject them to heavy fines in Europe.

You’re so naive. The data protection issue is a ruse or Trojan horse that can be use to fine companies on technicalities when they don’t prevent the free speech that the politicians and Deep State don’t like:

Senate Democrats are circulating a proposal based upon their claim of Russian hacking that will completely takeover the internet and social media which has been leaked. They are adopting the EU approach to silence political criticism. They claim it is necessary, just as the EU argued, that they must act to prevent Russian hackers and “restore” the people’s trust in our institutions, democracy, and the free press. They are proposing comprehensive GDPR-like data protection legislation following the EU. They are calling it a proposal for “Regulation of Social Media and Technology Firms,” and the draft was created by Sen. Mark Warner.

The entire regulation is based upon Russians and it claims they are deliberately spreading disinformation. To justify this act, they also point back to the old Soviet Union stating they attempted to spread “fake news” denigrating Martin Luther King. Despite the Democrats and their campaign to start World War III over Hillary’s emails, of which nobody denied were fake just hacked, their proposal is effectively to shut down anything they can call “hate speech” targeted at them, not Trump of course.

Warner’s paper suggests outlawing companies who fail to label bots and impose Draconian criminal penalties and huge fines. Effectively, they want people to pay for everything. The Democrats want full disclosure regarding ANY online political speech. They even want the Federal Trade Commission to have unbelievable power and require all companies’ algorithms to be audited by the feds as if they even have qualified staff to conduct such audits. On top of that, they have proposed tech platforms above a certain size MUST turn over internal data and processes to “independent public interest researchers” so they can identify potential “public health/addiction effects, anticompetitive behavior, radicalization,” scams, “user propagated misinformation,” and harassment—data that could be used to “inform actions by regulators or Congress.” This is a complete violation of both the First and Fourth Amendment. They want the same mechanisms in Europe where anyone can complain and demand the content be taken down or subject to fines that can confiscate all assets. Sounds to me like retirement is on the horizon.

This bill would effectively end all our freedoms.

They’re using this ruse to pressure the Internet behemoths into censoring the sort of truth that they don’t want the people to know as the Western Civilization collapses and they try to redirect blame on for example Putin so they can start a war to misdirect the negative feelings about the coming economic devastation towards a fake hostility that they construct (this is the Hegelian dialectic principle of governing the sheep like you):

After the first week, the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe has done far more damage than Brussels ever anticipated. This regulation, which was intended to really prevent political marketing against the government, is actually destroying the German Internet. Operators have chosen to simply shut down their websites for fear of lawsuits. Many online services have chosen to delete their users’ accounts. In case of violations of the regulation, companies face fines of four percent of their turnover.

At the same time, law firms are licking their lips and see a whole new fortune to be made while rubbing their hands. Lawyers have sprung into action and have set up consumer protection associations armed with this new regulation which explicitly states that consumers are entitled to take action for damages. Activists have targeted companies on a large scale all looking to make huge profits.

The US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger once said: “We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated.”

It took only one day for complaints to be filed against Google and Facebook under the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). When Mark Zuckerberg testified in front of members of the European Parliament, he insisted that Facebook was ready for Friday the 25th when the GDPR, which is the European Union’s new strict data privacy going into effect. The very first day, complaints against Facebook and Google with others alleging that the tech companies are in violation of the law.

The GDPR was passed in April 2016 and instituted stringent new rules on any company that held consumer data. The real purpose of this is to prevent mass mailing and targeting people for political purposes. You have people like Clapper now claiming he “personally” believes Russia tipped the election because millions of people saw its propaganda. Of course, Clapper did that to other elections outside the USA besides tapping phones of world leaders including Merkel. The old problem is those in government have always assumed the people are stupid sheep because they have lied to them for decades and gotten away with it. The GDPR is all about trying to prevent real freedom of speech in fear that the people might listen and rise up.

The complaints target the user agreements of Google and Facebook which are notorious for being long and complicated to ensure people do not read everything before they click agree. Companies like Facebook and Google are supposed to let you know precisely what kind of data they’re collecting and/or selling about you.

Fuck, I can’t hardly tolerate wasting my time anymore on these “know-it-all” Millennial bunny rabbits. Just let them crash and burn:

http://trilema.com/2013/the-story-of-pointless-and-witless/
https://steemit.com/psychology/@anonymint/social-courtesies-the-witless-and-pointless-example




It does not address hate speech.

As if by analogy of the weakness of your reasoning, U.S. passports don’t address child support payments and tax collection? Maybe you better get an education:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-irs-can-deny-you-a-passport/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/divorce-collapse-of-socialism/
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/legal-matters/child-support.html
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/eastern_europe/russia-you-cannot-leave-if-you-owe-money/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/australians-looking-at-restriction-on-travel/


Some unrelated lulz:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/americas-current-economy/canada-to-fingerprint-anyone-who-owes-them-money/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/police-given-dui-tickets-when-on-a-raft-in-australia/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/australia-is-hunting-for-people-who-use-business-cars-to-go-to-sports-games/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/australia-creates-domestic-violence-tax/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/australia-oceania/australia-tracking-parents-accounts-by-following-children/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/is-australian-government-crossing-the-line-into-a-totalitarian-state/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/australia-oceania/australias-new-pm-ex-ceo-of-goldman-sachs/
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 3719


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 06:20:09 PM
Merited by Foxpup (1)
 #95

As I predicted, you can only refute a soundbite and not dig into the links to actually correct your ignorance.

There is no reason to dig into your conspiracy theories. You were not be able to quote the part of GDPR that addresses hate speech and/or caused the ban of Alex Jones / Infowars. If you're having a problem with some other law or regulation you need to articulate yourself better lest you sound like a witless oaf.

Shelby_Moore_III_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 3


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 06:45:39 PM
Last edit: August 21, 2018, 02:13:42 AM by Shelby_Moore_III_
 #96

As I predicted, you can only refute a soundbite and not dig into the links to actually correct your ignorance.

There is no reason to dig into your conspiracy theories. You were not be able to quote the part of GDPR that addresses hate speech and/or caused the ban of Alex Jones / Infowars. If you're having a problem with some other law or regulation you need to articulate yourself better lest you sound like a witless oaf.

Lol. What an idiot. You lack basic reasoning skills as explained in the prior post.

You understand nothing about law if you think law is only what is written in the law. My father is former West Coast Division Head Attorney for Exxon who graduated top of his class in one of the top law universities in the USA.

Armstrong is also an autodidact legal scholar.

Dimwit, here is one example of the specific way that GDPR forces tech companies to ban hate speech because the law can put them into a liability quandry:


And that's not all that's dangerous about the current rules. They also deal a huge blow to anonymous speech and privacy:

Quote
A second glaring problem with the GDPR process is its requirement that companies disclose the identity of the person who posted the content, without any specified legal process or protection. This is completely out of line with existing intermediary liability laws. Some have provisions for disclosing user identity, but not without a prescribed legal process, and not as a tool available to anyone who merely alleges that an online speaker has violated the law. It’s also out of line with the general pro-privacy goals of the GDPR, and its specific articles governing disclosure of anyone’s personal information -- including that of people who put content on the Internet.

Yes, that's right. In an effort to protect privacy, the drafters are so focused on a single scenario, that they don't consider how the process will be abused to weaken the privacy rights of others. Want to know who said something anonymously that you don't like? File a privacy complaint and the service provider is just supposed to cough up their name. Again, given how often we've seen bogus defamation claims made solely for the purpose of trying to identify those who speak anonymously, this is a major concern.

Just go finger yourself. That’s about all you’re capable of.

Dear Europe: Please Don't Kill Free Speech In The Name Of 'Privacy Protection'

About a year and a half ago, we wrote about how the new European "General Data Protection Regulation" (GDPR) was potentially very problematic for free speech. That is, well-meaning "data protection" folks wrote up the GDPR, but it appears they did so with little thought towards what the impact might be on free speech. So, specifcally, when they include something like a right to "erasure" for certain information, you can understand, from a privacy standpoint why people may want certain data and information to be deleted from certain databases. But bring that over to the open web, rather than private databases, and you're talking about a censorship tool around a "right to be forgotten" system.


FIGHTING FOR THE INTERNET: SOCIAL MEDIA, GOVERNMENTS AND TECH COMPANIES

Free speech or illegal content?

Whether hate speech, propaganda or activism, governments across the globe have upped efforts to curb content deemed illegal from circulating on social networks. From drawn-out court cases to blanket bans, DW examines how some countries try to stop the circulation of illicit content while others attempt to regulate social media.

Social media law

After a public debate in Germany, a new law on social media came into effect in October. The legislation imposes heavy fines on social media companies, such as Facebook, for failing to take down posts containing hate speech. Facebook and other social media companies have complained about the law, saying that harsh rules might lead to unnecessary censorship.

Regulation

In China, the use of social media is highly regulated by the government. Beijing has effectively blocked access to thousands of websites and platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest. Instead, China offers its citizens access to local social media platforms, such as Weibo and WeChat, which boast hundreds of millions of monthly users.

Twitter bans Russia-linked accounts

Many politicians and media outlets blame Russia's influence for Donald Trump's election victory in 2016. Moscow reportedly used Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Instagram to shape public opinion on key issues. In October 2017, Twitter suspended over 2,750 accounts due to alleged Russian propaganda. The platform also banned ads from RT (formerly Russia Today) and the Sputnik news agency.

Facebook announces propaganda-linked tool

With social media under pressure for allowing alleged Russian meddling, Facebook announced a new project to combat such efforts in November 2017. The upcoming page will give users a chance to check if they "liked" or followed an alleged propaganda account on Facebook or Instagram. Meanwhile, Facebook has come under fire for not protecting user data in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Have you been sleeping under a rock lately.

Establishing that governments have the power to regulate the Internet is the camel’s nose under the tent of the end of freedom on the Internet. But of course they sell it to the public as protecting their human rights. Lol. And the dumb ass sheep like yourself fall for it.


The US has been reluctant to step in on tech regulations. Europe has moved ahead.
That Europe would be quicker to act on regulating Facebook and other tech companies hardly comes as a surprise. It has emerged as a leader in the arena in recent years, while the United States has taken a back seat.

[…]

Germany at the start of the year began enforcing a new hate speech law that gives social networks just 24 hours to act on hate speech, fake news, and illegal material.

I read that in some countries is Europe men can’t urinate in a standing position because it might make noise or make transgenders feel uncomfortable.

My Swedish friend tells me that Swedes are not allowed to rent a house or apartment if their tax reported income is not above a certain level every year.


With the way Europe approaches technology, sometimes I get the feeling that over time it will look rather Amish -- but without barn raising, since that would probably be illegal too.


When companies are effectively forced by economics to turn off their websites for the EU, that is censorship by the EU for their enslaved sheep citizenry:

But for businesses, the GDPR is a little vague and more than a little scary. It gives EU citizens the right to be forgotten – which means when they ask, the business has to delete everything about that customer. Plenty of gotchas apply – like you have to keep enough to still pass a tax audit – but as an example of a really curious gotcha, what about your backups? For example, do you have to delete the customer’s data inside your past backups?

The max penalties are terribad.

Up to €20M or 4% of your company’s annual worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.

See, under the GDPR, if someone asks us to delete their data, we not only have to delete it, but we have to audit that we deleted it, and maintain those records for EU authorities. And then respond to EU requests for that documentation.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 3719


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 08:11:31 PM
 #97

You understand nothing about law if you think law is only what is written in the law. My father is former West Coast Division Head Attorney for Exxon who graduated top of his class in one of the top law universities in the USA.

My dad could beat up your dad though.

Dimwit, here is one example of the specific way that GDPR forces tech companies to ban hate speech because the law can put them into a liability quandry:

Facebook, Youtube, etc had hate speech bans long before GDPR. They just chose to ignore their own rules while making money off Alex Jones.

You don't like the law, I get it. I'm not a fan of it either. Still kinda important to know what's in it. Ask your dad.

Shelby_Moore_III_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 3


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 08:30:00 PM
Last edit: October 16, 2018, 03:36:33 PM by Shelby_Moore_III_
 #98

He can still publish on his own website.

suchmo[r]on, not if the EU decides to fine him on some technicality of the GDPR. The law can basically force censorship. I guess you didn’t bother to read my quotes that exemplify the law is chock full of ambiguities and forced liabilities.

Those additional liabilities along with other developments in the same genre of totalitarianism that is sweeping over the West is what is causing the censorship to accelerate. It’s all connected. You can try to pick your ass about some differentiation between the crap laws, but it’s all the same shit.

Alex Jones “I’m Ready to Die” - Exclusive Interview After Being Banned
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/eu-considering-requiring-a-broadcaster-license-to-have-youtube-channel/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/gdpr-creates-an-overwhelming-bureaucratic-nightmare-in-europe/
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/trump-maintains-google-is-rigged-warns-other-internet-giants-to-be-careful
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8120#comment-2031856

Still kinda important to know what's in it. Ask your dad.

And you didn’t know what it is “in it”, as explained above.

Are you going to come back for more sloppy retard replies suchmo[r]on?
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 3719


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 08:37:20 PM
 #99

Are you going to come back for more sloppy retard replies suchmo[r]on?

Only if you promise to reply with huge walls of text from conspiracy sites of home-schooled "lawyers", Mr. Mooreon (did I do this right?).

Shelby_Moore_III_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 3


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 08:39:29 PM
Last edit: August 21, 2018, 02:26:35 AM by Shelby_Moore_III_
 #100

Only if you promise to reply with huge walls of text from conspiracy sites of home-schooled "lawyers"

Appeal to authority is not an argument. It’s a trolling tactic that attempts to obfuscate that you really don’t want to respond to the logic presented.

You got your moronic ass whipped and ran away from the arguments.






huge walls of text from conspiracy sites

So Techdirt.com is a conspiracy site when they are citing Stanford's Center for Internet and Society?

Dimwit, here is one example of the specific way that GDPR forces tech companies to ban hate speech because the law can put them into a liability quandry:[/size]

And that's not all that's dangerous about the current rules. They also deal a huge blow to anonymous speech and privacy:

Quote
A second glaring problem with the GDPR process is its requirement that companies disclose the identity of the person who posted the content, without any specified legal process or protection. This is completely out of line with existing intermediary liability laws. Some have provisions for disclosing user identity, but not without a prescribed legal process, and not as a tool available to anyone who merely alleges that an online speaker has violated the law. It’s also out of line with the general pro-privacy goals of the GDPR, and its specific articles governing disclosure of anyone’s personal information -- including that of people who put content on the Internet.

Yes, that's right. In an effort to protect privacy, the drafters are so focused on a single scenario, that they don't consider how the process will be abused to weaken the privacy rights of others. Want to know who said something anonymously that you don't like? File a privacy complaint and the service provider is just supposed to cough up their name. Again, given how often we've seen bogus defamation claims made solely for the purpose of trying to identify those who speak anonymously, this is a major concern.

Are you not capable of comprehending how the above requirement of the GDPR law could cause a large company to decide it’s easier to just ban hate speech from their websites rather risk some loose canons dragging them into complex domino effect liability outcomes of the requirements of the law.

The large companies’ legal departments see the writing on the wall and have decided to favor caution over free speech.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!