6 ms·

> My question is, couldn’t you do this fairly without even spending that much money? It would actually cost tens of millions of dollars (if not more) if you wa

• hef19898 5y ago
  If you cannot comply with local securities laws you have no business in finance in those countries.
  • dcolkitt 5y ago
    If you cannot comply with local restrictions on press freedom you have no business serving content to users from those countries.
    • space_rock 5y ago
      Exactly. It's a circular argument to say a law is good because it's a law. And no one has any idea of financial laws in each country Saying that Sam Altman is a scammer
    • maxbond 5y ago
      This comparison would imply that securities laws are unjust because financiers are regularly targeted by authoritarian regimes. Which is ludicrous. They aren't the underdogs here. They _are_ the powerful parties who need to be kept in check for democracy to function. A journalist publishing despite censorship is in no way comparable to wealthy promoters distributing unregulated securities. I think what you were going for may have been that distributing these securities is in some way freedom of speech, which is also just incorrect, or correct in some way so limited as to be irrelevant. If it is freedom of speech, your freedom to distribute securities stops at scamming your neighbor's nose. But the burden of proof here is on your security _not_ being a scam, and that is because unregulated securities markets readily devolve into scam after scam.
      • paisawalla 5y ago
        The law isn't optional when it restrains things I don't like.
      • BurningFrog 5y ago
        If laws forbid what you want to do, you're clearly, by definition, not in power.
        • throwaway2048 5y ago
          The point of a nation of laws is to restrain the powerful, the powerful don't need laws to do what they want done, and the law is the only safe redress the abused have against them. Which is why unpunished abuses of the law by elites in society is so damaging in the long run, it erodes the very foundation of what it means to be a just society.
          • BurningFrog 5y ago
            By that definition, it's hard to understand why the powerful don't just use their power to stop the legislation holding them back. I think in reality there are many different kinds of power, and talking about power as if it's one simple fungible thing leads to naive and wrong conclusions.
            • maxbond 5y ago
              I agree, the thing is, the person who introduced the idea into this conversation that power was a boolean quantity and that it meant you either could do anything or were limited in some way - was you. I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, it's just the facts; we weren't talking in those terms until you introduced them. You wouldn't need to disagree with this point if you hadn't brought it up yourself. Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?
    • rgrieselhuber 5y ago
      This is why the Founders (in America) made it clear that the human rights have an ontological basis that transcends any law (rights are granted by God, whatever that means to you). Rights that are granted by laws are not rights at all, which is why the proper understanding of human rights is that they can neither be granted nor taken away by any human law, as any law that would do so is just a coercive force belonging to whoever happens to be in power at the time. The Anti-Federalists were so concerned to make this clear that they even viewed enumerating basic rights in the Bill of Rights as dangerous / likely to be interpreted as exhaustive vs. transcendent, which is exactly what has happened over time, of course.
      • sillysaurusx 5y ago
        This is actually my favorite comment of the year. Pardon the ignorant question, but what did you study to learn this? My midwestern education completely failed me here. I'd like to read whatever it is you read.
        • rgrieselhuber 5y ago
          Thank you. :) Man, I wish I had a simple answer for you, it's basically what I've pieced together over the years by trying to fill in the gaps in my own midwestern education. A lot of it, I did pick up by digging into the history the Federalist / Anti-Federalist papers themselves, as well as various readings on the Founders / framing of the Constitution. If I think of anything specific I can point to, I'll follow back up here.
          • sillysaurusx 5y ago
            Thank you. Honestly, any starting point whatsoever would be extremely helpful. That's the thing that's prevented me from ever seriously diving in, mostly because life makes so little time for it. But I can make the time now.
            • rgrieselhuber 5y ago
• mc32 5y ago
  What kind of excuse is that? That’s like saying it would cost tens of millions of dollars to comply with health regulations in different countries when you sell foodstuff. Yes, of course! Maybe electric automobile mfgs can just ship cars all over the world without going through safety standards too!
  • akhmatova 5y ago
    What kind of excuse is that? The standard Silicon Valley Ethos excuse. Which is what a lot of these "self-made men" have and built their careers and fortunes on.
    • mc32 5y ago
      The internet and electronic commerce needed some breathing room during its nascent period, but now that its self-sufficient and does not need these kinds of allowances to survive, it's time they get rolled in to existing oversight or the .gov rollout a new Administration/Commission, etc. to govern these new areas of the economy to ensure it's not a free for all.
  • xboxnolifes 5y ago
    The question was literally "couldn't you do this without spending a ton of money?". Why isn't saying "no, it'll cost a lot of money" a valid answer?