5 ms·

Some of us don't believe that online payment systems need concern themselves with that. Especially if preventing money laundering basically means having no onli

Some of us don't believe that online payment systems need concern themselves with that. Especially if preventing money laundering basically means having no online privacy.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
People believe all kinds of things, but unless there’s more than a snowball’s chance in hell of changing the law to accommodate their beliefs, I spend my limited time considering other viewpoints. I don’t see any chance of these laws changing in favor of your beliefs, and I’m having this discussion in the world as it exists.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Hey, I bet that you violate Saudi anti-pornography laws every day. Perhaps alcohol-abuse laws, as well.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    Definitely, and as a result I wisely stay the hell out of Saudi Arabia. I’m also known to avoid North Korea while I’m at it. I certainly don’t try to change their legal system from my keyboard.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Unfortunately, just staying out of the US doesn't protect you from them. You're just lucky that Saudi Arabia etc don't have the reach.
      - colejohnson66 8y ago
        Exactly. Can you imagine if Saudi Arabia tried to have you extradited for a crime that was illegal there, but legal here? On a side note, isn’t that what’s happening with Kim Dotcom?
        toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        Without a legal background or at least an understanding of the legal force of treaties, what you’re saying sounds both alarming and vile. In the context of treaties though, agreed upon by governments subject to recall, elections, and separation of powers is the foundation of modern diplomacy. As we’ve seen with Brexit, treaties and laws are both subject to oversight by the electorate, for better or worse. Beyond that the reason you can’t be extradited to Saudi Arabia is that few countries have such treaties with them. It’s true that the US uses it’s military and monetary power to shove unfavorable conditions where possible, but that’s a universal feature of powerful nations, see China for clarification. Such treaty obligations can lead to problems like the persecution of Kim Dotcom, but it also leads to confrontations over human rights and fairness of laws. Treaty obligations within Europe prevent them from extraditing someone for a capital crime in a other country. Being outside of binding web of treaties offers freedom, but it often offers the most freedom to dictators. So yes, US copyright law is a mess, and that mess spreads through treaties. That’s a problem with US law, not the concept of treaties. Most of all, such treaties offer avenues other than violence for countries to settle disputes, and that value can not be overstated.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  And yet you have taken from your limited time writing this message, even though there is no snowball chance of your post changing any law from your keyboard. Can you not see that there are more reasons for public discourse than just directly changing some law?
belltaco 8y ago
And some of us believe people calling for hate and violence shouldn't be given a pedestal to spread their hate. If Twitch starts allowing Nazis to broadcast their hate of colored people I am going to stop using it.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Well, what can I say? You can do what you like. But your position is not consistent with the US Constitution, for whatever that's worth. I don't like lots of what I hear. But the right to free expression is more important than what I like, or don't. From the ACLU: > Can my free speech be restricted because of what I say — even if it is controversial? > No. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the content of speech. However, this does not mean that the Constitution completely protects all types of speech in every circumstance. Police and government officials are allowed to place certain narrowly drawn "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights — for example, permit requirements for large groups using public parks or limits on the loudness of sound amplifiers. Any such restrictions must apply to all speech regardless of its point of view. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/demonstrations-and-protests https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/demonstrations-and-pro...
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Damn. So I know what it's like to have ~no freedom of expression. We used to distribute stuff that was printed at night on fucking mimeograph machines! You had to burn the stencils at the end of a run. Which is one reason why I ended up in the US. That, and the drugs. But whatever. Also, it's funny that much of what's now "politically correct" was totally unmentionable and censored in the 50s. If those who were "politically correct" then had done a better job at censorship, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    The US Constitution protects you from censure by the US government. There is no protection, whatsoever, from any private individual or corporation being required to aid you in broadcasting, distributing or otherwise conveying your speech.

Some of us don't believe that online payment systems need concern themselves with that. Especially if preventing money laundering basically means having no online privacy.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago

People believe all kinds of things, but unless there’s more than a snowball’s chance in hell of changing the law to accommodate their beliefs, I spend my limited time considering other viewpoints. I don’t see any chance of these laws changing in favor of your beliefs, and I’m having this discussion in the world as it exists.

mirimir 8y ago
Hey, I bet that you violate Saudi anti-pornography laws every day. Perhaps alcohol-abuse laws, as well.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  Definitely, and as a result I wisely stay the hell out of Saudi Arabia. I’m also known to avoid North Korea while I’m at it. I certainly don’t try to change their legal system from my keyboard.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Unfortunately, just staying out of the US doesn't protect you from them. You're just lucky that Saudi Arabia etc don't have the reach.
    - colejohnson66 8y ago
      Exactly. Can you imagine if Saudi Arabia tried to have you extradited for a crime that was illegal there, but legal here? On a side note, isn’t that what’s happening with Kim Dotcom?
      - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        Without a legal background or at least an understanding of the legal force of treaties, what you’re saying sounds both alarming and vile. In the context of treaties though, agreed upon by governments subject to recall, elections, and separation of powers is the foundation of modern diplomacy. As we’ve seen with Brexit, treaties and laws are both subject to oversight by the electorate, for better or worse. Beyond that the reason you can’t be extradited to Saudi Arabia is that few countries have such treaties with them. It’s true that the US uses it’s military and monetary power to shove unfavorable conditions where possible, but that’s a universal feature of powerful nations, see China for clarification. Such treaty obligations can lead to problems like the persecution of Kim Dotcom, but it also leads to confrontations over human rights and fairness of laws. Treaty obligations within Europe prevent them from extraditing someone for a capital crime in a other country. Being outside of binding web of treaties offers freedom, but it often offers the most freedom to dictators. So yes, US copyright law is a mess, and that mess spreads through treaties. That’s a problem with US law, not the concept of treaties. Most of all, such treaties offer avenues other than violence for countries to settle disputes, and that value can not be overstated.
Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
And yet you have taken from your limited time writing this message, even though there is no snowball chance of your post changing any law from your keyboard. Can you not see that there are more reasons for public discourse than just directly changing some law?

belltaco 8y ago

And some of us believe people calling for hate and violence shouldn't be given a pedestal to spread their hate. If Twitch starts allowing Nazis to broadcast their hate of colored people I am going to stop using it.

mirimir 8y ago
Well, what can I say? You can do what you like. But your position is not consistent with the US Constitution, for whatever that's worth. I don't like lots of what I hear. But the right to free expression is more important than what I like, or don't. From the ACLU: > Can my free speech be restricted because of what I say — even if it is controversial? > No. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the content of speech. However, this does not mean that the Constitution completely protects all types of speech in every circumstance. Police and government officials are allowed to place certain narrowly drawn "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights — for example, permit requirements for large groups using public parks or limits on the loudness of sound amplifiers. Any such restrictions must apply to all speech regardless of its point of view. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/demonstrations-and-protests https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/demonstrations-and-pro...
- mirimir 8y ago
  Damn. So I know what it's like to have ~no freedom of expression. We used to distribute stuff that was printed at night on fucking mimeograph machines! You had to burn the stencils at the end of a run. Which is one reason why I ended up in the US. That, and the drugs. But whatever. Also, it's funny that much of what's now "politically correct" was totally unmentionable and censored in the 50s. If those who were "politically correct" then had done a better job at censorship, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
- XorNot 8y ago
  The US Constitution protects you from censure by the US government. There is no protection, whatsoever, from any private individual or corporation being required to aid you in broadcasting, distributing or otherwise conveying your speech.