4 ms·
You have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support this claim, and as such you should not make it. This is how disinformation is spread; not through some
by TameAntelope 4y ago
You have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support this claim, and as such you should not make it.
This is how disinformation is spread; not through some conspiratorial plot to confuse, but from fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
- 4oh9do 4y agoI am not making a claim, I am laying out how the process could hypothetically occur, hence the use of "would" in my post. I'm curious, however, why did you not make a similar post to the parent comment...in that the parent comment has presented no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Coinbase is only using publicly-available information, and therefore by your own reasoning the parent poster should not make the claim.
- TameAntelope 4y ago> Coinbase Tracer allows clients, in both government and the private sector, to trace transactions through the blockchain, a distributed ledger of transactions integral to cryptocurrency use. Because both the parent comment and I have read the article, so we both have evidence to support the claim that Coinbase is only using publicly-available information, as that's how Coinbase Tracer, the license to which was reported as sold to ICE for $29,000, works.
- braingenious 4y agoI think the person you’re talking to is theorizing about the possibility that Coinbase may not be completely honest in their statement about the nature of the service they provide to ICE. The article does not provide proof aside from repeating Coinbase’s statement. If your standard of proof is “somebody wrote something online,” then GP provided you with proof that it’s possible that Coinbase lied.
- TameAntelope 4y ago> If your standard of proof is “somebody wrote something online,” then GP provided you with proof that it’s possible that Coinbase lied. I literally cannot parse this sentence, can you rephrase?
- braingenious 4y agoI’m not sure how this is unclear. If Coinbase wrote a paragraph about their practices and that paragraph is “proof” of their practices, why wouldn’t another party writing a paragraph constitute “proof” of their position? The topic of this sentence is “the definition of proof.”
- TameAntelope 4y agoEliminate the word “proof” from your vocabulary. All we have here is evidence, which is fundamentally different.
- braingenious 4y agoOkay, there are words saying that “maybe Coinbase’s work with ICE is more sinister than they divulged.” Those are words online! That’s evidence! You cannot refute that someone wrote those words. I know that those are words online because I wrote them! Now you have evidence and testimony. The funny part about all this is that nobody is claiming that they know that Coinbase is lying about this contract. It’s all been entirely hypothetical (hence the word “maybe.”) What evidence or proof have you seen that there exists no possibility of a corporation lying about their relationship with a controversial government agency?
- TameAntelope 4y agoRational thinkers don't consider beliefs just because they haven't conclusively been "disproven".
- braingenious 4y ago
- seoaeu 4y agoYou have absolutely zero evidence the parent comment is disinformation, and as such you should not have made the claim
- TameAntelope 4y agoThe author outright admitted what he wrote was speculative and not factual. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I do have evidence.
- jamiek88 4y agoSpeculation does not equal fud
- TameAntelope 4y agoI didn't say it does generally.
- uoaei 4y agoA lovely display of ideology-borne bias! Thanks for the potent demonstration!
- forgetfulness 4y agoPrivacy is important because these hypotheticals are enabled by the lack of it, you don't need to ask if, to give a more extreme example, unrestricted backdoor access to your account login to law enforcement agencies has been used for arbitrary surveillance, you demand that these things not be done so you don't have to find out years later.