Conversation
i don't particularly like this stuff but i really hate the kind of arguments that come up!
the Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy's arguments are: "all financial activity should have a referee, privacy is dangerous, please legislate who is allowed to do things"
1
1
20
these arguments always suggest that privacy (speech) is granted only because people don't think speech is dangerous, but privacy (money) is undeserved because money is dangerous
3
7
31
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
thank you paypal for locking my account if i put the word "iran" in the note for a payment to a friend
1
2
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
ah, yes, because creating a massive surveillance system “to stop terrorists” has definitely never harmed already marginalized people 🙄
1
2
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Right, a mass surveillance system that's primarily used to oppress sex workers, drug users and dissidents.
Take a look at what's banned by the company where a couple very vocal authoritarians who signed that letter work:
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Banks, financial services and governments having access to your entire financial history is mass surveillance. Selling and sharing access to it to other companies makes that even more true.
I'm not American and I'm not sure what that would have to do with any of this if I was.
2
2
Show replies


