yucky · HackerTrans

    > Every entertainment is equally at fault

Clearly not. That would be like dismissing Siberian tigers as just cats, and pretending they're no more dangerous than the average housecat. The taxonomy is the same, but the similarities end there.

yucky

há 4 anosdiscuss

   > Not to mention that a yearly subscription is cheaper than buying outright

This is false. Software companies aren't switching to subscription models to make less money.

    > the idea of "owning" software feels positively archaic to me, as strange as "owning" a music album.

This is so non-sensical I'm going to assume it's a typo.

yucky

há 4 anosdiscuss

That is not the case here because the Tides Foundation is a Donor Advised Fund, which is a dark money vehicle used to fund causes indirectly, hiding the source.

Let's say (hypothetically) that Wikimedia wanted to use our donations to fund the eradication of Palestinians from Israel. If they fund it directly, people would know and might stop giving money to Wikimedia. However, Wikimedia can give your money to the Tides Foundation with instructions on how to disburse it. Tides doesn't have to disclose who's money is used for what. Ta-da! Dark money charities.

yucky

há 4 anosdiscuss

>just because something is not legally required does not mean that it's wrong to do it, so I don't see why the distinction even matters.

Define "wrong" though. That's the problem, and why the distinction matters.

yucky

há 4 anosdiscuss

>Several suicides have been attributed directly to their actions, as well as the Christchurch massacre.

Saying something that is demonstrably false like this only makes the argument against them look worse. It has the opposite effect you're going for.

yucky

há 4 anosdiscuss

yucky

há 4 anosdiscuss

>Malicious domains, users of email services for spam purposes, etc, get removed by their hosts all the time. That's simply a fact, I have made or been involved with the process as I work in security.

Yes because it's illegal. Deadnaming a transperson might be mean but it's not illegal. If there are countries where it is illegal, then they could just do like China does to "protect people from offensive material" by banning sites in those locales.

yucky

há 5 anosdiscuss

Which part?

yucky

há 5 anosdiscuss

The most likely explanation I've read is that Szabo was involved on the Bitcoin project, at the behest of US Intelligence (perhaps team lead, working within a defined set of goals - it's speculation for now). Bitcoin is a very effective means of destabilizing currencies and extracting wealth out of non-friendly areas, so for the US Intelligence community it is a boon.

Szabo later went on to improve on the concept with Monero, without the involvement of US Intelligence (obviously, since Monero is very unfriendly for the US Govt). Again, speculation. The only person capable of creating both, is likely Szabo. Monero being a big middle finger to "the team" behind Bitcoin, who still control the keys.

yucky

há 5 anosdiscuss

The US Intelligence community knows who Satoshi is. After all, they created it to destabilize competitor currencies. Satoshi is likely a Project Name, not a person. Nobody else could laugh at the idea of wanting to cash in $70 billion.

comments