3 ms·

misled how? "man dies after impact with car" is rightly reported as "man booked for manslaughter after hit-and-run" the technical details are perhaps not as

misled how? "man dies after impact with car" is rightly reported as "man booked for manslaughter after hit-and-run" the technical details are perhaps not as important than the criminality that transpired

vmception 5y ago
following the analogy, this article and many others like it conflate offshore with criminality while occasionally saying "although use of licensed banks in these countries is not illegal [in the host country and the client's country of residence]" and then glossing over that for the rest of the research paper, never quantifying any use case even with leaked data, all to steer your emotions. The internet is a mirror, it tells you what you want to see. You should be most skeptical when things match your worst nightmare.
- metalliqaz 5y ago
  it is not technically criminal but deeply unfair. that's what people care about
  - vmception 5y ago
    I can see that perspective From my view the absurdity is that people are concerned about why they arent being hosed equally by their own government’s revenue efforts instead of why they are being hosed at all This leads to a greater absurdity of demanding that another country - that has a balanced budget - take money that it doesnt need by taxing its customers and being mad when they say no. This requires a very special kind of hubris that I think people need to 1) recognize they have bought into 2) recognize that their neighbors don't subscribe to that train of thought and have been operating by a much more effective set of rules. So whatever you’ve been told is probably just a lie if it bothers you that this is usually legal. I'm not saying it is practical for their own country to balance their budget, or that their own country and citizens/representatives have a consensus mechanism for having a more fair revenue system whether by taxation or otherwise. I am saying that has nothing to do with countries that have figured out how to fund themselves by offering financial services, or the people that use them.
- clucas 5y ago
  You're saying "doing business with these banks is not illegal, so there's nothing to be concerned about." The author is saying "doing business with these banks is not illegal, but they lack certain reporting requirements that have been very helpful in revealing illegality, and we should be concerned about that." The author has given multiple reasons and cited other studies showing why we should be concerned. At this point, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why the author's concerns are unfounded. Why do you think beneficial ownership registries and similar reporting requirements are not needed?
  - vmception 5y ago
    I haven't addressed the author so my role isn't to make an opinion on their conclusions, only the wording. For example “Evidence” is used in the title as opposed to “Transparency Report” or “Data from server breach”, or any of my other working titles which would be used for literally any other industry.

vmception 5y ago

following the analogy, this article and many others like it conflate offshore with criminality while occasionally saying "although use of licensed banks in these countries is not illegal [in the host country and the client's country of residence]" and then glossing over that for the rest of the research paper, never quantifying any use case even with leaked data, all to steer your emotions. The internet is a mirror, it tells you what you want to see. You should be most skeptical when things match your worst nightmare.

metalliqaz 5y ago
it is not technically criminal but deeply unfair. that's what people care about
- vmception 5y ago
  I can see that perspective From my view the absurdity is that people are concerned about why they arent being hosed equally by their own government’s revenue efforts instead of why they are being hosed at all This leads to a greater absurdity of demanding that another country - that has a balanced budget - take money that it doesnt need by taxing its customers and being mad when they say no. This requires a very special kind of hubris that I think people need to 1) recognize they have bought into 2) recognize that their neighbors don't subscribe to that train of thought and have been operating by a much more effective set of rules. So whatever you’ve been told is probably just a lie if it bothers you that this is usually legal. I'm not saying it is practical for their own country to balance their budget, or that their own country and citizens/representatives have a consensus mechanism for having a more fair revenue system whether by taxation or otherwise. I am saying that has nothing to do with countries that have figured out how to fund themselves by offering financial services, or the people that use them.
clucas 5y ago
You're saying "doing business with these banks is not illegal, so there's nothing to be concerned about." The author is saying "doing business with these banks is not illegal, but they lack certain reporting requirements that have been very helpful in revealing illegality, and we should be concerned about that." The author has given multiple reasons and cited other studies showing why we should be concerned. At this point, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why the author's concerns are unfounded. Why do you think beneficial ownership registries and similar reporting requirements are not needed?
- vmception 5y ago
  I haven't addressed the author so my role isn't to make an opinion on their conclusions, only the wording. For example “Evidence” is used in the title as opposed to “Transparency Report” or “Data from server breach”, or any of my other working titles which would be used for literally any other industry.