3 ms·
> That was because, whether you agree with it or not, the US government deemed their behaviour to be illegal. There are, and should be real-world limits on the
by Zak 5y ago
> That was because, whether you agree with it or not, the US government deemed their behaviour to be illegal.
There are, and should be real-world limits on the ability of the US government to stop things from happening by deeming them illegal.
In the case of Wikileaks, one such limitation is the relatively decentralized nature of the internet. The US government was able to pressure Amazon to refuse to host it, but was unsuccessful in pressuring OVH, so Wikileaks remains online. There is no Great Firewall of America, so it remains accessible within the US.
Another limitation is that while the US government can and did pressure Paypal to refuse service to Wikileaks, there's no equivalent for preventing transfers of cryptocurrencies.
- threeseed 5y ago> There are, and should be real-world limits on the ability of the US government to stop things from happening by deeming them illegal. It already exists: the legal system. > there's no equivalent for preventing transfers of cryptocurrencies Money laundering, child trafficking, drug profiteering, terrorism etc. they all come with costs. And doing nothing to stop them is not good for anyone.
- im3w1l 5y agoI'm not American and neither is Wikileaks. My country is not an enemy of America but neither is our support unconditional. I think it's great that Wikileaks drops American dirt. I think it's not great that America tries to cutoff donations to cover up its dirt. I think it's great that alternative payment systems circumvent that.