5 ms·

> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 https://www.bbc.co.u

> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats, with two MPs murdered in the last decade. 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws? 2. They weren’t murdered on Twitter, so I fail to see how the Online Safety Act would have helped prevent this.

scott_w 2y ago
> 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws? The Online Safety Act isn't about making these things illegal. It's about making it more difficult to do the illegal things in the first place. To take an analogy: money laundering legislation exists to make it harder to use the proceeds of organised crime in legitimate life. Being a drug dealer is already illegal, yet we don't use that as an argument against such laws and regulations.
- opwieurposiu 2y ago
  "The purpose of the system is what it does." 99% of people are not drug dealers, yet we still experience the deadweight loss of KYC and AML. Therefore AML exists because agents of the state like to screw with us, waste our time, and steal our cash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
  - michaelt 2y ago
    What a confusing quote. My bicycle recently got a puncture. Is the purpose of my bicycle to get punctures?
    - skeaker 2y ago
      If that was defacto the only thing your bicycle ever did, then yes I guess.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    So your position is that we should allow criminals to launder the proceeds of violent and organised crime (with all the victims it causes) into the legitimate economy because…
    - southernplaces7 2y ago
      Your response is similar to someone who opposes privacy activists and their fight for E2E encryption saying "so your position is that children should be sexually exploited online". It's an absurd caricaturization of a nuanced set of arguments with deeper ramifications. No, a person who opposes heavy-handed, invasive KYC and AML laws does not argue that genuine organized crime figures and terrorists should do however they please with their money. The argument is instead that fighting these figures and their transactions shouldn't be designed in such a way that it also penalizes the vast majority of people who are doing nothing more illegal than tripping up some bullshit lazy, rote paranoid financial legal framework. Also, like many other kinds of privacy, financial privacy should be a right that isn't exclusive to government black budgets and well-connected elites.
      - scott_w 2y ago
        >> So your position is that we should allow criminals to launder the proceeds of violent and organised crime > Your response is similar to someone who opposes privacy activists and their fight for E2E encryption saying "so your position is that children should be sexually exploited online". Re-read my accusation. I never stated that you support committing crimes, I stated that you believe that, once the crime is committed, the money can be entered into the legitimate system. With that said, let's look at your clarification: > No, a person who opposes heavy-handed, invasive KYC and AML laws > their transactions shouldn't be designed in such a way that it also penalizes the vast majority of people I need to see evidence that the "vast majority" of people are being "penalized" by this system. The most "inconvenience" I ever faced was having to provide bank statements when applying for a mortgage to prove the deposit was legitimately my money. There was a post just last week from patio11 that makes me doubt your claim that the "vast majority" of people are inconvenienced by AML. In addition, I watched this video by a former financial services advisor [1] that also suggests to me that your claims are wildly overblown. > Also, like many other kinds of privacy, financial privacy should be a right that isn't exclusive to government black budgets and well-connected elites. Weirdly "well-connected elites" are the people most inconvenienced by AML, KYC and PEP regulations (see above references), so I think your grasp of the issue is not aligned with reality. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAFlRSftffc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAFlRSftffc
michaelt 2y ago
> They weren’t murdered on Twitter, so I fail to see how the Online Safety Act would have helped prevent this. I mention that because in some online communities threats of rape and murder are bandied about jokingly. That 12 year old on Fortnite voice chat isn't really going to fuck your mom! That twitter joke trial where someone threatened to blow up an airport was ridiculous. Some might wonder - why can't these twitter-using politicians ignore a few murder threats from neo-nazis and islamists, like the rest of us? The reason is the real, non-joke murders by neo-nazis and islamists.
- bilvar 2y ago
  You know political assassination was a thing even before Twitter right?
- skeaker 2y ago
  Wouldn't it be easier to get the jump on them by not threatening them in the first place? How does stopping the verbal threat also stop the real life attack? Not to say that I wish harm on anyone or think anyone deserves to be threatened. The point is more that if the reasoning for this is as you say, then the laws they're putting in place don't really make sense. It's like if someone was going around poisoning the water supply and they outlawed talking about it instead of just protecting the water supply.

scott_w 2y ago

> 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws? The Online Safety Act isn't about making these things illegal. It's about making it more difficult to do the illegal things in the first place. To take an analogy: money laundering legislation exists to make it harder to use the proceeds of organised crime in legitimate life. Being a drug dealer is already illegal, yet we don't use that as an argument against such laws and regulations.

opwieurposiu 2y ago
"The purpose of the system is what it does." 99% of people are not drug dealers, yet we still experience the deadweight loss of KYC and AML. Therefore AML exists because agents of the state like to screw with us, waste our time, and steal our cash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
- michaelt 2y ago
  What a confusing quote. My bicycle recently got a puncture. Is the purpose of my bicycle to get punctures?
  - skeaker 2y ago
    If that was defacto the only thing your bicycle ever did, then yes I guess.
- scott_w 2y ago
  So your position is that we should allow criminals to launder the proceeds of violent and organised crime (with all the victims it causes) into the legitimate economy because…
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    Your response is similar to someone who opposes privacy activists and their fight for E2E encryption saying "so your position is that children should be sexually exploited online". It's an absurd caricaturization of a nuanced set of arguments with deeper ramifications. No, a person who opposes heavy-handed, invasive KYC and AML laws does not argue that genuine organized crime figures and terrorists should do however they please with their money. The argument is instead that fighting these figures and their transactions shouldn't be designed in such a way that it also penalizes the vast majority of people who are doing nothing more illegal than tripping up some bullshit lazy, rote paranoid financial legal framework. Also, like many other kinds of privacy, financial privacy should be a right that isn't exclusive to government black budgets and well-connected elites.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      >> So your position is that we should allow criminals to launder the proceeds of violent and organised crime > Your response is similar to someone who opposes privacy activists and their fight for E2E encryption saying "so your position is that children should be sexually exploited online". Re-read my accusation. I never stated that you support committing crimes, I stated that you believe that, once the crime is committed, the money can be entered into the legitimate system. With that said, let's look at your clarification: > No, a person who opposes heavy-handed, invasive KYC and AML laws > their transactions shouldn't be designed in such a way that it also penalizes the vast majority of people I need to see evidence that the "vast majority" of people are being "penalized" by this system. The most "inconvenience" I ever faced was having to provide bank statements when applying for a mortgage to prove the deposit was legitimately my money. There was a post just last week from patio11 that makes me doubt your claim that the "vast majority" of people are inconvenienced by AML. In addition, I watched this video by a former financial services advisor [1] that also suggests to me that your claims are wildly overblown. > Also, like many other kinds of privacy, financial privacy should be a right that isn't exclusive to government black budgets and well-connected elites. Weirdly "well-connected elites" are the people most inconvenienced by AML, KYC and PEP regulations (see above references), so I think your grasp of the issue is not aligned with reality. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAFlRSftffc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAFlRSftffc

michaelt 2y ago

> They weren’t murdered on Twitter, so I fail to see how the Online Safety Act would have helped prevent this. I mention that because in some online communities threats of rape and murder are bandied about jokingly. That 12 year old on Fortnite voice chat isn't really going to fuck your mom! That twitter joke trial where someone threatened to blow up an airport was ridiculous. Some might wonder - why can't these twitter-using politicians ignore a few murder threats from neo-nazis and islamists, like the rest of us? The reason is the real, non-joke murders by neo-nazis and islamists.

bilvar 2y ago
You know political assassination was a thing even before Twitter right?
skeaker 2y ago
Wouldn't it be easier to get the jump on them by not threatening them in the first place? How does stopping the verbal threat also stop the real life attack? Not to say that I wish harm on anyone or think anyone deserves to be threatened. The point is more that if the reasoning for this is as you say, then the laws they're putting in place don't really make sense. It's like if someone was going around poisoning the water supply and they outlawed talking about it instead of just protecting the water supply.