"Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe,..."

[smoothie]

So i read the following:

"Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here."

Does this mean that if someone was operating say a heroine business they could advertise on this forum? How does that work?

Is there a advertiser's "filter"?


Just seems odd to say that "They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction".

I am under the assumption that this forum operates in the U.S. jurisdiction.

[1715349625]

1715349625

[1715349625]

1715349625

[1715349625]

1715349625

[1715349625]

1715349625

[theMiracle]

It's not clearcut, but here's a good place to start if you're simply curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_in_Internet_cases_in_the_United_States
If, (as is the case with this forum), there is substantial financial exposure, obviously consult a real attorney.
In short, claims that "you can advertise anything, as long as it is legal in the seller's jurisdiction" are clearly false.

*If this thread is related to the Ponzi ads, those are simply stupid.  They attract the worst kind of attention to this forum, provide rallying points to Bitcoin detractors and regulators, and generally paint us in every shade of shit.  Do not want.

[SaltySpitoon]

Gah, I had a good reply written out but forum database error made me lose it. I shall retry to replicate it.

In U.S Cyber jurisdiction, what is used is the "Sliding Scale Standard" which classifies the sort of business is being conducted by a site, and then determines whether Jurisdiction is proper. There are three classifications

1) Substantial Business conducted over the Internet (contracts/sales for example)

2) Some interactivity through a web site

3) Passive advertising

In situation 1) Jurisdiction is proper, in 2) Jurisdiction is sometimes proper, and in 3) Jurisdiction is not proper. So lets classify the Bitcoin forums,

Does the forums count as having Substantial Business conducted over the Internet? No, this classification would be valid if it was the site owner or operator selling the goods/services in question, listings are done P2P. Oh what about Ebay etc you ask? Ebay is processing your money and is therefore a party in the transaction. If you use Ebay.com, you can't buy/sell things that are illegal in the U.S. If you use Ebay.co.uk you can't sell/buy things that are illegal in the UK, etc.

Does the forum require some interactivity? Yes, members are required to log in.

Are threads in the marketplace considered Passive Advertising? Yes, as explained below

"An internet communication typically is considered passive if people have to voluntarily access it to read the message, and active if it is sent to specific individuals."

When you see a sales thread saying "[WTS] Crack" it is up to the readers discretion to read it or not, the forum is not marketing it towards you. It is then up to the users not to be stupid and get arrested for something illegal in their own jurisdiction. If someone says [WTS] Crack and is selling it in a country where it is illegal, the mods will take it down.

For example a while ago, there was a thread where someone was offering prostitution services in France I believe, no one was offering to send the prostitutes anywhere other than France, so it was fine. I'm not sure if there is any country where Heroin is legal, but if there is, don't sell it anywhere besides where it is legal.

[theMiracle]

Salty, i'm not going to play interweb lawyer, and it is not me that you have to convince.
IRL, you don't get to quote wikipedia articles to the judge, who, in turn, quotes Investopedia and Google and you break for lunch.  It simply not like that, that's why people spend time studying law/spend big money on lawyers.
If the tinfoil hatters are right, If the TLAs are reading this forum with Evol intent, this sort of thing is just the foothold they'll use.  Building a case, from that point on, is simply scraping logs.  It's just *IDIOTIC* to take risks like that *for a fraction of a bitcoin* (next lowest bidder would have made up all but a fraction).

I'm amazed that this needs to be spelled out.  This is not a case of defending the freedom of speech -- it is a case of defending the rights of a blatant scammer to profit off Bitcoiners.

It's embarrassing.  It's not something I want Bitcoin to be associated with, no matter how tangentially, regardless of the surrounding laws.

[SaltySpitoon]

Salty, i'm not going to play interweb lawyer, and it is not me that you have to convince.  IRL, you don't get to quote wikipedia articles to the judge, who, in turn, quotes Investopedia and Google and you break for lunch.  It simply not like that, that's why people spend time studying law/spend big money on lawyers.
If the tinfoil hatters are right, If the TLAs are reading this forum with Evol intent, this sort of thing is just the foothold they'll use.  Building a case, from that point on, is simply scraping logs.  It's just *IDIOTIC* to take risks like that *for a fraction of a bitcoin* (next lowest bidder would have made up all but a fraction).

I'm amazed that this needs to be spelled out.  This is not a case of defending the freedom of speech -- it is a case of defending the rights of a blatant scammer to profit off Bitcoiners.

It's embarrassing.  It's not something I want Bitcoin to be associated with, no matter how tangentially.

I'm not quoting wikipedia articles, I'm quoting my business and criminal law text books 

If the point is that people don't want "shady" stuff associated with Bitcoin, that has nothing to do with the forums. These forums don't represent Bitcoin any more than Craigslist represents the US Dollar. Bitcoin is a currency, the only thing the forum has to worry about is its legal obligation, which should be satisfied. The forum is about freedom of speech and ideas pertaining to Bitcoin. Banning something that some specific people don't agree with is sort of against the whole idea of freedom of money. You are still restricted by what your country of residence allows, but why should we add more restrictions?

I'm not a user of drugs, ponzis, gambling sites, or other paraphenalia, but I don't see why its my right to tell people what they can and cannot do, outside of forum policy and legal restrictions.

[theMiracle]

...If the point is that people don't want "shady" stuff associated with Bitcoin, that has nothing to do with the forums. These forums don't represent Bitcoin any more than Craigslist represents the US Dollar. ...

Salty.  If a large percentage of the dollars' sum total was recently "stolen by some hax0rz," if, less than a year ago, the biggest dollar institution -- a black market of drugs, guns and hit contracts, was very publicly taken down, and if the only visible entities representing the dollar were The Dollar Foundation (manned by the alleged goofus who "lost" a big chunk of world's dollar supply and a fellow charged with money laundering) and ... this forum.  If most of the people in the world thought of the dollar as "that hacker money fer drugs and shit," and you wanted to change that misconception.... Well, you see where this is going, right?

It is irrelevant what people *should* base their image of Bitcoin on.  It's important for us not to shit up the things they *do*.