7 ms·

The strange part to me is just that there are already hundreds of crypto currencies available in Germany. When the government says that yes, these hundreds of c

• burlesona 7y ago
  It's legally tricky to be anti-Facebook for the sake of being anti-Facebook, but I don't think it's morally tricky. The entire idea of anti-trust (and frankly, the premise of most western democracies) is to prevent the over-concentration of power. Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now, far more powerful than most nation states. I'm not sure that we as a society have ever dealt with a non-state actor this powerful before. Germany's response of essentially "yeah no, we're not letting Facebook make money here," seems prudent to me.
  • downandout 7y ago
    Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now, far more powerful than most nation states. This is hyperbole at best. Facebook does not have an army, weapons, or literally anyone that would be willing to die or even be physically put out to defend it. I’m no Facebook fan, but let’s not let Facebook hysteria overrun these comments.
    • TuringNYC 7y ago
      It is unrealistically limiting to think modern wars are fought only with armies. Most wars are quiet and fought with capital, thought, rhetoric, and policy. Armies only come into the picture if all else fails.
      • dantheman 7y ago
        Can you point me to a 'modern war' without armies? I'm interested in what you actually think a war is?
        • ismail 7y ago
          Not op but will take a stab. The comment was in response to: “This is hyperbole at best. Facebook does not have an army” Op was pointing out that power != war with guns “Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now” The comment was how power could be achieved via other methods of warfare-including the ability to shape conversations. Another word for this would be competition. He has a point.
          • denton-scratch 7y ago
            Negative, Spock. The ability to shape conversations or to compete is not the same as making war (or you are relying on an idiosyncratic definition of "war").
            • ismail 7y ago
              It seems we are splitting hairs here on the definition of "war" and missing the actual message. Since you brought it up again. War (Noun) " - a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism - a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end - a struggle to achieve a goal: " War (Verb): " - to be in active or vigorous conflict - to carry on active hostility or contention " The point still stands. War is an isomorphism for competition, conflict and tension between parties. One could probably use something like category theory and prove it. References: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war
        • degski 7y ago
          cyberwar springs to mind.
        • infominer 7y ago
          [edit/ downvote this all you like, pretending like warfare requires guns and armies when 2 different government elections have been attacked using social media, namely Facebook.] https://www.thegreathack.com/ https://www.thegreathack.com/ > Data has surpassed oil as the world’s most valuable asset. It’s being weaponized to wage cultural and political warfare. People everywhere are in a battle for control of our most intimate personal details. From award-winning filmmakers Karim Amer and Jehane Noujaim, THE GREAT HACK uncovers the dark world of data exploitation with astounding access to the personal journeys of key players on different sides of the explosive Cambridge Analytica/Facebook data scandal.
    • sailfast 7y ago
      One could argue they have a higher GDP and population than most countries right now (all depends how you measure “power”) but I’m with you: if it went down tomorrow, I’m not sure what the world would actually be losing, nobody would die, and the world would keep spinning.
    • StreamBright 7y ago
      Yeah they only know everything about 1B people and can swing elections but other than these they are just a regular company selling stuff.
      • downandout 7y ago
        There is zero evidence that any activity conducted on Facebook has ever actually swung a single election. As far as I can tell, that is hyperbole as well.
        • StreamBright 7y ago
          Absolutely. A $5 billion USD hyperbole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_d... "The governments of India[30][31] and Brazil[32][33] demanded that Cambridge Analytica report how anyone used data from the breach in political campaigning, and various regional governments in the United States have lawsuits in their court systems from citizens affected by the data breach.[34] On April 25, 2018, Facebook released their first earnings report since the scandal was reported. Revenue fell since the last quarter, but this is usual as it followed the holiday season quote. The quarter revenue was the highest for a first quarter, and the second overall.[35] In early July 2018, the United Kingdom's Information Commissioner's Office announced it intended to fine Facebook £500,000 ($663,000) over the data scandal, this being the maximum fine allowed at the time of the breach, saying Facebook "contravened the law by failing to safeguard people's information".[36] In March 2019, a court filing by the U.S. Attorney General for the District of Columbia alleged that Facebook knew of Cambridge Analytica's "improper data-gathering practices" months before they were first publicly reported in December 2015.[37] In July 2019, the Federal Trade Commission voted to approve fining Facebook around $5 billion to finally settle the investigation to the scandal, with a 3-2 vote.[38] Facebook established Social Science One as a response to the event."
          • downandout 7y ago
            Nothing you provided is evidence that any Facebook activity has ever swung any election. The very people that paid Cambridge Analytica for their services in 2016 said that the company’s strategies were ineffective at best, referring to it as “snake oil” [1]. You have provided evidence that people attempted to use Facebook to swing an election. Those two things are not the same. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/23/four-and-a-half-reasons-not-to-worry-that-cambridge-analytica-skewed-the-2016-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/2...
  • dantheman 7y ago
    Yet, western democracies have been centralizing more and more power every year. It's more that a premise is that western democracies want to increase the power of the government and no one else.
    • kevingadd 7y ago
      Well, on the bright side most democracies are not explicitly about profit-making and/or cost-cutting as their first priority, even if it's the first priority of individual politicians.
      • FillardMillmore 7y ago
        I would agree with your statement that most western governments are not explicitly motivated by cost cutting and profit seeking. It would seem evident when we look at the trajectory of the US national debt in the past 40 or so years. However, I do not know if this is a good or bad thing. Will the national debt ever be paid off? And if not, what will the consequences be?
        • AsyncAwait 7y ago
          A nation paying its debt would actually not be as beneficial as you think, considering today's society runs on debt, having it is actually beneficial to an extent for relations, trade, to avoid war etc. Now whether things should be this way am not sure, but a nation simply paying its debt off without significant changes to the role debt plays is not the answer.
      • erikpukinskis 7y ago
        The U.S. being the major exception?
    • FillardMillmore 7y ago
      Is it only western democracies that you think have been centralizing power? What about countries like China, Iran and Russia? Western democracies historically have been party to increasing the power of private companies through government protection from competition (corporate welfare). The first example that popped in my head was the provision of prison labor for U.S. Steel through convict leasing. There are numerous examples though, link below from Mises (admittedly a source with a conservative bias, but theres still good info there). https://mises.org/wire/government-created-monopolies-are-everywhere https://mises.org/wire/government-created-monopolies-are-eve... It would seem to me that governments provide preferential treatment to private companies when it is beneficial for the government and they provide roadblocks and difficulties to companies who would be detrimental to the government. This is of course a generalization and not a hard-and-fast rule that explains every instance of government behavior when viewed in respect to a private company.
  • skinnymuch 7y ago
    Why is Facebook more powerful than Google/Alphabet? > I'm not sure that we as a society have ever dealt with a non-state actor this powerful before. Amazon and Google being of somewhat similar or greater power at least tempers down that statement. And unlike Facebook they have really good reputations outside specific parts of circles like the tech circle.
    • kevingadd 7y ago
      Facebook has way more control over the social fabric and distribution of information than Google does. We've seen violence-inciting disinformation campaigns spread through Facebook and rack up a literal death count to the point that governments have angrily demanded intervention from FB with the result of FB shrugging their shoulders and going 'our bad, we didn't hire enough moderators'.
      • jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
        I still remember back in the late-noughties when the DOD was inviting arabs to come to the U.S. and attend workshops teaching how to use facebook to organize insurgencies. That stuff is out of fashion now, but we were oddly okay with it back during the Arab Spring.
      • subroutine 7y ago
        > We've seen violence-inciting disinformation campaigns spread through Facebook and rack up a literal death count To me that signals they have less 'control' of the distribution of information on their own platform. It's debatable who could wield more social influence, Google or Facebook. On me, it'd certainly be Google, since I use about a dozen google products (Chrome, Gmail, Search, Mesh, Calendar, Analytics, Voice, Android, Scholar, Cloud, Maps, etc.), and zero Facebook products.
      • pmart123 7y ago
        Not really though. Apple and Alphabet effectively could cripple Facebook. We are already seeing some of this take place with Apple banning Facebook's VPN apps, options on data shared with apps and by rolling out its new app sign in with Apple feature. There are benefits and drawbacks to social media/everyone has a voice. On a benign level, the NYTimes released a story misinforming its readership that Apple was proactively promoting its own apps. This was cleared up on Twitter by @drbarnard whose view was promoted via Stratechary. I realize there is a lot more complexity to nation-states creating false narratives around China or Hong Kong protests, but on a basic level, I believe social media allows a quicker iteration cycle to correct misinformed views with the drawback of initial misinformation traveling at a greater velocity. In many ways, you can get a more informed and accurate view of the situation in Hong Kong today if you have the propensity to avoid overreacting to the first piece of information and developing a skillset for finding the right person to listen to.
  • Smithalicious 7y ago
    >Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now No it isn't, not even close. At most it's the third most powerful tech company, after Alphabet and Amazon.
    • h0h0h0h0111 7y ago
      Amazon is surely big and rich, but do they really exert the same psychological/social power on you? You don't read your news on Amazon, you don't send messages to your closest friends on amazon, you don't go down reading rabbit holes from following links on Amazon (not really, anyway). Certainly purchase data is very powerful (ask supermarkets!), but I think it pales in comparison to the breadth of data Facebook and Google collect.
      • Smithalicious 7y ago
        I guess Amazon is maybe not as powerful as Facebook, yes. I was thinking about it also in terms of AWS and such, but I guess that Amazon can't really convert that into an evil master plan in any way. I might also be biased towards underestimating Facebook since nobody in my social circle actually uses Facebook or Instagram. I guess Facebook is more powerful than I gave it credit for, though it still pales in comparison to Alphabet.
        • h0h0h0h0111 7y ago
          While I agree that Google is more powerful, remember that even if you or your friends don't use Facebook, many of the sites you visit do - so unless you've got pimped out tracking protection (which as a HN user you probably do, but maybe your friends don't!), Facebook still have a good idea where you're moving throughout cyberspace
  • grawprog 7y ago
    >I'm not sure that we as a society have ever dealt with a non-state actor this powerful before. The east India trading company and the hudson's bay company as well as I'm sure some others were as large as or larger than some state actors of their time.
    • wavefunction 7y ago
      A fine point and two significant examples that illustrate the dangers of unfettered corporations.
  • ismail 7y ago
    Some people are questioning: “Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now, far more powerful than most nation states” Op did not clarify his reasoning. Though I have thought about this and here are mine. If strip down a “nation state” to its bare essence, it is an idea. Lines drawn on a map, and symbols(flags, anthems etc). Add in the government directing education, and we end up with masses that can be influenced to behave in specific ways. i.e socialisation and sense of identity. Now, we know that government plays a significant part in the country and in the world. Now let’s consider FB. FB has by far the largest network of people that are connected in one massive network. I suspect Information (memes) could spread much faster on Fb, Whatsapp and insta than they could prior to these. Even email was never as fast. Since FB has control of the network without over sight on the algorithms and filtering, they wield significant power to shape global conversations. Shaping global conversations fundamentally can lead to over throwing of leaders with out ever a bullet being shot, it could lead to genocide, nationalism etc etc. It’s no surprise that the EU is on high alert. Edit: I think this requires more exploring. This is fundamentally a war against a new form of influence & control of masses of people. See previous wars: religion vs state, state vs monarchy etc etc. Has anyone considered this perspective before? Would appreciate any links
• mokus 7y ago
  How many of those are backed (edit: created and fully controlled) by a foreign company with 2.4 billion active users and extremely questionable privacy track record?
  • ipsum2 7y ago
    > backed (edit: created and fully controlled) by a foreign company This is factually wrong. Facebook controls a very small portion of Libra (<1/10): https://libra.org/en-US/partners/ https://libra.org/en-US/partners/
  • bko 7y ago
    As another commenter noted Facebook does not control it. But you're right that the token is backed by something, mainly one to one reserves of currencies and government bonds. So you're okay with bitcoin, that has a market cap of over $100bn that's backed by nothing, but someone creates a cryptocurrency that's backed by one to one reserves of the safest investments in the world and that's somehow extremely questionable.
    • Spearchucker 7y ago
      It's not questionable at all. It's undesirable.
    • tradertef 7y ago
      Libra is not cryptocurrency. It is digital currency.
• civicsquid 7y ago
  I think it's more of an anti-tech mindset more than an anti-Facebook mindset. If Google did this, I imagine that Germany would be just as upset. If, for example, Goldman Sachs did the same thing, that might not go over smoothly, but I don't think it would see such a negative reaction. I'd assume that feels more in line with the status-quo, whereas tech companies getting involved in financial instruments is not as familiar. I more so wonder what would happen if a company like Stripe did this. They are sort of a "financial" company, but I'd say also undoubtedly a "tech" company too.
  • bko 7y ago
    I think the way Facebook did this was the right way. It set up Libra as an independent non-profit and they have a non controlling share. The founding members include Stripe, Visa, Mastercard and PayPal. All the media coverage on Libra is incredibly dishonest and ill-informed.
    • civicsquid 7y ago
      That's fair, I think I forget that not everyone knows that this is a project managed by a consortium, not by a single company alone.
      • wavefunction 7y ago
        The consortium is like a rogue's gallery of companies I distrust though, so I'm not sure decentralizing my deep distrust is going to help the Libra project.
    • 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Yes, but Facebook will have enormous power in this deal as they own the platform. Distrusting them is the only logical conclusion given their track record and power. Libra isn't a decentralized crypto currency, it's a new fiat currency minted by a private corporation with a very questionable track record and an uncomfortable amount of concentrated power. It's also seated in a country with a very weak track record enforcing rules on giant corporation misbehaving. Users choosing to use something they collectively create and control is very different than this type of centralized power moves. They are in essence trying to bring billions (trillions?) of dollars worth of the worlds savings into US jurisdiction (and likely invested in the US economy via bonds and stocks) Good decision on the part of Germany and France IMO. I hope more countries follow their example and protect their sovereignty.
• an_ko 7y ago
  Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are usually by design not controlled by anyone but the users participating in mining and trading it. Banning that is like banning people from trading in carrots; you can't. It's very different when there's a company with its own financial interests manning the door, regardless of what company that is.
  • rightbyte 7y ago
    Yes you can ban trading in carrots. Especially in Germany where the law is ... enforced. A ban make most things commercially unviable. If botcoin had widespread use a ban would make it an underground payment system.
    • gretch 7y ago
      Physically ppl ban guns and drugs. Digital services ppl ban child porn and gambling. Sucks you are downvoted because you are right
    • ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      I think his overall point stands: going after facebook is more sensible than chasing individual bitcoiners.
• tzm 7y ago
  > already hundreds of crypto currencies available in Germany How many cypto providers have > 2 billion users? FB should be regulated.
• AlexCoventry 7y ago
  Ideologically, at least, extant cryptocurrencies aim to decentralize power, whereas the OP was saying that German resistance to Libra comes from a concern about the centralized power it might afford. That's not mere bigotry.
  • JAlexoid 7y ago
    That's why it's specifically Lubra* that is being addressed. * - Intentional typo, for a double entendre.
• kypro 7y ago
  Europe has developed a fairly anti-US-big-tech attitude recently. As a Brit I kind of understand it. We probably don't benefit from importing all of our 21st century products and services from the US, especially when these companies don't pay any taxes in our countries. Europe as a market has higher taxes, more regulation, and has more cultural barriers giving us a huge disadvantage when trying to compete in the global market with the big US (or increasingly Chinese) tech companies. Unfortunately I think we may need protectionist policies like this if we want to develop our own tech companies and products. It's the same situation the US is in with manufacturing. The US simply can't compete with countries like China, so if the US is passionate about preserving its manufacturing sector the only answer is protectionism.
  • TulliusCicero 7y ago
    > We probably don't benefit from importing all of our 21st century products and services from the US This amounts to "our country is bad at [thing], so let's restrict trade for [thing] to protect our industries." Of course it sounds great until other countries counter by restricting the thing you are good at, and then everyone loses.
    • dantheman 7y ago
      It also robs those not in the favored industries by either providing them an inferior or more expensive product/service, usually both.
    • blub 7y ago
      That's precisely the right decision if those industries have national significance.
    • nprateem 7y ago
      It amounts to "these multinational companies employ armies of accountants to use every trick in the book to avoid paying taxes on all the sales they've made in our country, and it's not fair"
  • xigency 7y ago
• IGotThroughIt 7y ago
  That's because they have a clear way on how to stop facebook while they don't really know how to stop decentralized crypto (whose whole point is to resist state interference).
• Legogris 7y ago
  There's a key difference here in that Libra is a permissioned ledger in a fundamentally different way. One could argue that PoS-based blockchains fall under that as well, since you need to acquire tokens to stake to become a validator and the tokens need to come from somewhere. But if we take Ethereum as an example, they have been under permissionless PoW for years, the tokens are traded on public markets and the capital that needs to be locked up i order to become a validator node is ~6,000 USD with today's ETH price. In the case of Libra, a validator needs to be brought into the Libra foundation, subject to approval of current members and a membership fee of 10 million USD. So you can see Bitcoin (permissionless PoW) and Ethereum 2.0 (permissionless PoS) as anonymous, permissionless cooperatives where everyone is playing on the same field, whereas Libra consists of a small consortium of large corporates who can set the rules as they wish.
• ilaksh 7y ago
  Libra is not a cryptocurrency. It's a private payment system integrated into a global tech monopoly ecosystem masquerading as a cryptocurrency.
• celticninja 7y ago
  Well the decentralised nature of most crypto currencies prevent this sort of ban, but a centralised offering from a known entity is a lot easier to block. I would also say it is better to block it, especially with Zuck at the helm, he has proven he cares nothing for regulation or laws in the nation's in which FB operates. At least bitcoin is consensus driven,libra will be driven by Zuck and the tech giants. No thanks.
  • greenyoda 7y ago
    > Well the decentralised nature of most crypto currencies prevent this sort of ban... Just because Bitcoin is decentralized doesn't mean that a country can't ban it within its own borders. To do that, all a country would need to do is pass a law making it a crime to own or use Bitcoin, while also prosecuting people who didn't report profits from illicit Bitcoin transactions with tax evasion. At that point, no legitimate business in the country would be able to accept Bitcoin or convert it to cash, and the vast majority of citizens wouldn't risk fines or imprisonment to use it. Since, at this time, a very small fraction of the population uses crytocurrencies (or even knows what they are), enacting such a law probably wouldn't face a lot of resistance, especially if it were presented as a measure to fight crime or terrorism.
    • celticninja 7y ago
      You can ban bitcoin from your country but you can't stop it from being used. You could ban Libra from your country AND stop it being used.
• insulanus 7y ago
  This is a very good description of your argument. It may seem like an unfair stance - I'll try to show why it might not be a crazy position to take. Let's just use Bitcoin vs. Libra, because bitcoin is much easier to type than cryptocurrency. You know, instead of typing up a list of the pros and cons of allowing your citizens to use bitcoin vs. libra, I'll just talk about the underlying premise. I think that as a government, you don't want to lose control of the money supply. That includes: * How the money is used * Inflation * (And unfortunately, nowadays) tracking the money. Looking at this from the point of view of a government, it seems pretty dangerous to put all those controls in the hands of a company. Personally, I would be against this decision for any company, not matter how well liked. Situations change, and then the powerful can change the rules.
• seppin 7y ago
  Do those crypto currencies have the ability to pound 80% of German citizens with adds employing them to adopt their currency everyday?