s73ver_

26 ms·

211.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"Unpopular opinion: Title II is not a great solution to Net Neutrality." Do you have a compelling reason why? Tittle II worked fantastically for phone calls. I see zero reason why it wouldn't work for internet as well.
212.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Disagree. Repealing a rule that protects citizens absolutely fucks them over.
213.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"In the public interest" Key phrase. There is zero evidence that repealing Net Neutrality is anywhere close to the public interest.
214.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
The FCC's mandate isn't to give in to the industry, either.
215.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"But semantics aside, taxation is theft," No, not in the slightest.
216.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I don't see why it's ironic. Whether something is useful or not, and whether it's increases in value should be covered under financial taxes like any other commodity are separate issues.
217.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
How well has that worked to combat harassment?
218.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Saying that Slack and Reddit don't compare because they're "locked in" really misses the point that most users don't care about that.
219.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
At the same time, the school assuming that every kid has access to this, without providing it themselves, is also pretty messed up.
220.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
No, they're just trying to smugly suggest that they're superior to everyone else because they've rooted their phone to run an ad blocker.
221.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Uber? You mean the super slimy company that has been set up to skirt labor laws?
222.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I honestly do not believe that. If it was a good idea, it would be possible to create it in a non-scammy way. My point is that there is no reason to not have the disclosure and reporting regulations in place. You really have not countered t
223.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
It is, when the industry in question has repeatedly shown themselves to act in a bad manner. Further, "governing least" is a terrible idea, because that also implies that they're going to fail to govern in situations where th
224.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
That argument completely ignores why the rules were put into place when they were. Namely, because the ISPs started to act in a non-neutral manner.
225.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
The state isn't meddling in those choices. The state is simply saying that if you're going to offer a security, you have to disclose things about it. Thus, enabling people to make those choices.
226.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
You can. Look at the JOBS Act. There is a provision allowing you to raise money with far laxer rules than going public. Really the only thing you need is a quarterly audited report. And if you can't get that, then no, you should not be
227.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Except this entire discussion was kicked off by trying to evade reporting and disclosure regulations.
228.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Bypassing regulation is neither good nor valuable unless you're planning to scam someone.
229.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption." I feel you really, really do need to make yourself familiar with that before chast
230.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
If you've got evidence to back up that claim, feel free. Remember, however, that the people the SEC employs for doing this are expensive.
231.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
And why couldn't that happen without the scam component?
232.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"Why can't we have the regulations without the financial burdens?" If you can find people willing to work for your without pay, you can.
233.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
If you're only focusing on the costs of compliance, then you're looking at the wrong thing. "Coin offerings do not have to fall in the tens of millions of dollars." The amount of money does not matter; a scam is a scam.
234.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I've not heard any reason why these ICOs are any different than any other security. Simply being "on a computer" never should have been enough for patents, and it most definitely isn't enough here.
235.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
The JOBS Act changed some of those thresholds. However, there is exactly zero reason why the reporting and transparency regulations should be thrown out, regardless of whether you're doing a paper security or a crypto coin.
236.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
If you're deterred by this kind of thing, then perhaps you're the kind of "entrepreneur" that should be discouraged. We absolutely do not need any more scammers in this space.
237.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Can I ask why you'd still go ahead with a token after all that, instead of doing a normal security? With all the same reporting and other regulations as a security, what does being a token get you?
238.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
All businesses complain about regulation when they could have no regulation. I honestly don't care. What I'm saying is I'm not hearing any actual complaints regarding Title II, and not something that doesn't boil down to
239.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
There's the greed of wanting more marketshare and more customers, which is just fine. Then there's the greed on display here, which is just wanting more money per customer without doing anything. Take care not to conflate the two,
240.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"What's wrong with rich guys becoming richer?" Because it happens by doing something that negatively affects the rest of us. If they were getting richer by something that benefitted the rest of us too, that'd be fine.

More ›