The idea that messaging apps are a problem (or for that matter the suggestion that QAnon believers shouldn't be allowed to talk to one another) is a poisonous direction for this debate to take. The problem is one of a major political party embracing extremism and irrealityhttps://twitter.com/donie/status/1400231752963088386 …
-
-
Evil people don't have millions of times more need to talk to one another securely than regular people. But they do need to send enormously more money than regular people. So the tradeoff is different for these two technologies. Moreover, encrypted messaging at least works.
Show this thread -
The same basic tradeoff—use cryptographic tools to move some areas of human interaction out of the reach of government—has divergent implications depending on whether you're talking about money or speech. Where I land on this is "talk all you want, but hold on to your wallet."
Show this thread -
(For the record, I do support size limits on E2E encrypted chat. I wholeheartedly support anyone's right to private conversation, but don't want to live in a world where 10,000 people can have an unmonitorable chat room. Luckily, Telegram removes the dilemma by being unencrypted)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like that point. I'd enjoy having a drink with you someday and discussing speech and cryptocurrency. I think our views are fairly similar although I am no longer active on /r/Buttcoin these days and am a fan of a couple cryptos.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This theory extends to most non-crypto payment companies, doesn’t it? Most of the big ones are founded or run by such people
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But speech and money go hand in hand. The Us Supreme Court has consistently denied to restrict political campaign contributions and spending bc it raises series 1st amendment issueshttps://www.ifs.org/blog/is-money-speech/ …
-
“What if a conservative government, seeking a way around Roe v. Wade, announced that it would not prohibit abortions, but would simply limit the right to spend any money to provide or procure an abortion?”
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Can you explain this: Why cryptocurrencies tend to be banned or opposed by countries that oppress free speech?https://howmuch.net/articles/bitcoin-legality-around-the-world …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.