4 ms·

It's an appeal to authoritarianism. The author wants "someone" with power to tell everyone what they're allowed, and not allowed to do. " The free flow of mone

It's an appeal to authoritarianism. The author wants "someone" with power to tell everyone what they're allowed, and not allowed to do. " The free flow of money from US banks to cryptocurrency exchanges is the root cause and needs to halt. " Direct quote. Author is in London, but believes that #TeamAmericaWorldPoliece needs to step in because the only viable on/off ramp to cryptocurrencies is the US Bank System. The article has the veneer of being well thought out, however if you look at their other writing & twitter there's definitely a I think I'm smart & didn't invent/make money/gain referential power from crypto so it's a scam & they now have ego tied up in being right/seeing the state clamp down on it.

headmelted 5y ago
Not to speak to the author or the article, as I’m not familiar with their other writing, but this exact argument is why I think this battle for free speech ultimately gets lost. Given two options A and B: Option A) Status quo stays as is. Option B) Legally ban end-to-end encryption. My experience has been that most tech people advocate for A. Personally, I have no desire to have every conversation I expect to be private with the government watching over my shoulder, but that’s exactly where we’re headed if the tech community’s response to the problem of perverts/pedos/launderer/druglords boils down to “oh well gotta break a few eggs”. Techies can balk all day long at the idea of the government legislating away end-to-end encryption but the voting public won’t (and I don’t blame them, given the tech community’s response of ignoring this issue so far). Now, you might be thinking “but it doesn’t make sense! if you ban encryption, evildoers will still use it, and everyone else will have lost their privacy for nothing”. True. The tech community needs to find an Option C that resolves criminality before Option B is forced on everyone. (I have no suggestions for this, and doubt it’s possible, but maybe there’s a novel idea no-one has thought of.)

headmelted 5y ago

Not to speak to the author or the article, as I’m not familiar with their other writing, but this exact argument is why I think this battle for free speech ultimately gets lost. Given two options A and B: Option A) Status quo stays as is. Option B) Legally ban end-to-end encryption. My experience has been that most tech people advocate for A. Personally, I have no desire to have every conversation I expect to be private with the government watching over my shoulder, but that’s exactly where we’re headed if the tech community’s response to the problem of perverts/pedos/launderer/druglords boils down to “oh well gotta break a few eggs”. Techies can balk all day long at the idea of the government legislating away end-to-end encryption but the voting public won’t (and I don’t blame them, given the tech community’s response of ignoring this issue so far). Now, you might be thinking “but it doesn’t make sense! if you ban encryption, evildoers will still use it, and everyone else will have lost their privacy for nothing”. True. The tech community needs to find an Option C that resolves criminality before Option B is forced on everyone. (I have no suggestions for this, and doubt it’s possible, but maybe there’s a novel idea no-one has thought of.)