4 ms·

Facebook and Google. Money. No way. Those two companies are having absolutely no trust from my side, they have abused the trust so often, that they no loger kn

by stiray 6y ago

Facebook and Google. Money. No way. Those two companies are having absolutely no trust from my side, they have abused the trust so often, that they no loger know what the term means. I dont care what they do, I dont care how usefull their "gifts" are. Just NO. They have seriously flawed internet and human society as it was (is) and there is just no way I will let them into my finance. One is goverment, something completely different is survailance capitalism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXhnWUmMvw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXhnWUmMvw and there is a book that I would put in schools for mandatory reading: https://www.amazon.com/Age-Surveillance-Capitalism-Future-Frontier/dp/1610395697 https://www.amazon.com/Age-Surveillance-Capitalism-Future-Fr...) "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." ("Beware of Danaans bringing the gift", reference to Trojan horse, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeo_Danaos_et_dona_ferentes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeo_Danaos_et_dona_ferentes) p.s.: people downvoting, you just dont understand what you are against with. Educate yourself, please, this is no longer the time of cheering for your favorite coorporation, the things have gone over the edge.

henriquez 6y ago
Zuckerberg’s original aspiration with Libra before he had to walk it back was enough for any reasonable person to nope out: a world currency controlled by a cartel of multinational corporations accountable not to the citizens of their constituent countries, but to shareholders and capital owners. If anyone seriously thinks this sounds like a good idea I’m truly curious to hear your reasoning. In my view this was always a cynical ploy by Zuckerberg. He would love to control a huge piece of the world economy, but I believe he knows that the outcry from real governments would never allow that - so he could hedge by trying to have his project regulated out of existence and taking decentralized tech with it. Decentralized tech is the greatest long term competitive threat to Facebook. Zuckerberg knows it and would love to see it incidentally banned as a casualty of taking down Libra, but his mistake was overplaying his hand too early.
- charlesju 6y ago
  I think the thought process is that paper money is already controlled by world governments, so this isn't meant to be a replacement for paper money, but rather just an intermediary so the transfer of money can be done more easily and cheaper. I think another point is that if you want a truly decentralized, no government involved, cryptocurrency, those still exist, go buy and use some bitcoin.
- pedro_hab 6y ago
  "If anyone seriously thinks this sounds like a good idea I’m truly curious to hear your reasoning." I don't know if it is a good idea, but I don not share the view that being a private entity makes it lesser than government entities. I see governments and private entities as being built by people, and those are flawed just the same, governments even more so, since they are the perpetrators of the greatest evils of modern times.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >If anyone seriously thinks this sounds like a good idea I’m truly curious to hear your reasoning. I generally feel positive about something like Libra and I'm not in favour of decentralised currency. Decentralised currency is hard to tax, threatens the sovereignty of nation states, the ability to enact sanctions, enables crime and I'm not really on board with that. Libra (or something like it) looks like a way to built a cheap, frictionless payment that in any practical sense mostly seems to illemininate costs of transaction if it scales up well enough, and I think that's where most utility comes from in a currency. I don't see the value in some slow network that changes its value twenty times per month for the average person just so that you can stick it to the man or whatever. As to 'controlling the world economy'. I've never really understood how this is supposed to be the result of Libra. At the end of the day it's basically a Paypal without the middleman. The Libra owners will at some point earn some money on interest but otherwise I don't really see how this confers any monstrous powers to them. As far as that goes I'm more concerned about the Facebook platform itself.
  - uHuge 6y ago
    The precaution for control seems the custodial operations, where currency cummulates under the operators' trust, ie. in FB&col. The little step for keeping what you obtain in the platform inside it for further use within it is what agregates significant risk.

by stiray 6y ago

henriquez 6y ago

Zuckerberg’s original aspiration with Libra before he had to walk it back was enough for any reasonable person to nope out: a world currency controlled by a cartel of multinational corporations accountable not to the citizens of their constituent countries, but to shareholders and capital owners. If anyone seriously thinks this sounds like a good idea I’m truly curious to hear your reasoning. In my view this was always a cynical ploy by Zuckerberg. He would love to control a huge piece of the world economy, but I believe he knows that the outcry from real governments would never allow that - so he could hedge by trying to have his project regulated out of existence and taking decentralized tech with it. Decentralized tech is the greatest long term competitive threat to Facebook. Zuckerberg knows it and would love to see it incidentally banned as a casualty of taking down Libra, but his mistake was overplaying his hand too early.

charlesju 6y ago
I think the thought process is that paper money is already controlled by world governments, so this isn't meant to be a replacement for paper money, but rather just an intermediary so the transfer of money can be done more easily and cheaper. I think another point is that if you want a truly decentralized, no government involved, cryptocurrency, those still exist, go buy and use some bitcoin.
pedro_hab 6y ago
"If anyone seriously thinks this sounds like a good idea I’m truly curious to hear your reasoning." I don't know if it is a good idea, but I don not share the view that being a private entity makes it lesser than government entities. I see governments and private entities as being built by people, and those are flawed just the same, governments even more so, since they are the perpetrators of the greatest evils of modern times.
Barrin92 6y ago
>If anyone seriously thinks this sounds like a good idea I’m truly curious to hear your reasoning. I generally feel positive about something like Libra and I'm not in favour of decentralised currency. Decentralised currency is hard to tax, threatens the sovereignty of nation states, the ability to enact sanctions, enables crime and I'm not really on board with that. Libra (or something like it) looks like a way to built a cheap, frictionless payment that in any practical sense mostly seems to illemininate costs of transaction if it scales up well enough, and I think that's where most utility comes from in a currency. I don't see the value in some slow network that changes its value twenty times per month for the average person just so that you can stick it to the man or whatever. As to 'controlling the world economy'. I've never really understood how this is supposed to be the result of Libra. At the end of the day it's basically a Paypal without the middleman. The Libra owners will at some point earn some money on interest but otherwise I don't really see how this confers any monstrous powers to them. As far as that goes I'm more concerned about the Facebook platform itself.
- uHuge 6y ago
  The precaution for control seems the custodial operations, where currency cummulates under the operators' trust, ie. in FB&col. The little step for keeping what you obtain in the platform inside it for further use within it is what agregates significant risk.