Wow, that's crazy, none of what you said came true
Almost as if assuming you know more about someone's identity than they do doesn't make you some critical-thinking free speech martyr, just a presumptuous preacher telling other people how to live and express themselves.
But you just outlined use cases for crypto (illicit activity, etc) in your grandparent post while simultaneously claiming crypto can't be used as a currency. Which is it?
As I said, they aren't useful at all in the real world legally, only on unregulated exchanges where only mostly criminals are able to swap their tokens for fiat from their scores of ransomware raids and scams.
I would be in favour of regulations needing to kill this part off as Monero and Zcash isn't accepted on most of them. Not to mention you cannot even pay your taxes with these crypto tokens.
It's quite easy to be ,,just'' a criminal nowdays. All you need is just be born in a country led by a multibillionaire dictator who wants to nuke the world and want to receive your salary for your hard work from an American company.
Shoplifting is the act of stealing from a retailer, not an individual. Yes, I make a very big distinction between the two. I just don’t see why corporations in the US can get away with so much (shoplifting and wage theft are both estimated to cost the economy $40bln per year) and I’m supposed to feel bad someone is stealing from Amazon or Louis Vuitton? Doesn’t mean I’m “ok” with shoplifting, I simply feel it should be a civil matter like wage theft.
Railroads have always had their own police, so I’m not sure the reluctance. Retail/supply chain theft is a cat-and-mouse game… always had been, always will be. Step up enforcement, improve the locks, house the homeless and move on.
>Shoplifting is the act of stealing from a retailer, not an individual
No. You can shoplift from a small business or a family owned convenience store, which is essentially stealing from an individual. Those packages on the trains belonged to individuals btw.
Because the idea that property laws shouldn't be enforced and that the response to property crime is to give the thieves more stuff (housing and UBI) is a perverse incentive and a recipe for a lawless society where criminality is rewarded.
This isn't an argument against UBI or expanding housing per se, it's an argument against the people saying property laws should not be enforced because the criminals are poor.
Really have to love how the HN hivemind can simultaneously defend wholesale intellectual property theft (genlib, piratebay, et al) and claim that copyright law is too strict while getting morally bent out of shape over someone aggregating and curating otherwise low-value instagram posts in order to eat takeout for free.
It's almost as if the "hivemind" isn't a hivemind, but a large set of people with different opinions/morals and different willingness to express it in different contexts.
People can believe that copyright law is too strict while also believing that copying other people work is not moral. Adultery should not be illegal but also should be look at as morally wrong.
Also, the actual harm from downloading one additional episode of game of thrones is nearly non existent. The harm of stealing the photos from individual photographers is surely greater.
Many people believe that it's unethical to use other people's work for profit, at least not without sharing back, which seems to be the case here. It's not inconsistent to believe that, while also believing that non-commercial copyright infringement is not immoral.
Many people are taking issue with him quote-unquote "stealing" other people's content when he's ostensibly just resharing single images that fit in a broader theme of being vaguely NYC-related. This seems much more defensible as fair use as opposed to rehosting/pirating somebody's entire textbook or TV show.
I am an individual and not a hivemind. I, personally, find piratebay unethical. I pay for what I consume. Paywalled scientific articles are a different beast, which I don't want to get into here.
>Short sellers can't make Musk bash the SEC or call people pedos; that's on him.
But they certainly can engineer a fake rumor of an SEC requesting contempt of court by manipulating journalists and forging documents, if sufficiently motivated. Consider the SuperMicro story submitted to mainstream publications last year that was obviously fake and caused a massive decline in their stock. I don't think it's above a sophisticated actor to socially engineer a journalist in service of a "short and distort" campaign. Even Jim Cramer laid out the typical tactics of a short attack: get a short position open and then spread false rumors to a "bozo reporter" [0][1]
I'm no big Elon Musk fan, but the funny thing is -- correct me if I'm missing something -- I can't seem to find any evidence that the SEC ever published the complaint[2] documents supplied by a USA today journalist on the sec.gov website. Searching for "Case 1:18-cv-08865-AJN" only brings up the original settlement from October 2018. That alone gives me pause.
So, let me get this straight. You think short sellers are a massive cabal of evil geniuses and they just go around forging court documents and duping journalists? But just in the case of TSLA, not all the other companies it would be possible to short? And you think that's more likely than that the SEC asked the judge to hold Musk in contempt, which he obviously is by a plain reading of the settlement agreement?
This is waayayayayayaaaayyyyy off the deep end. Please check your priors, they are busted.
You're acting as if market manipulation is some far-out conspiracy theory rather than something relatively common. I don't think it takes a "kabal of evil geniuses" to dupe a few credulous journalists who are incentivized and looking for a scoop by forging some documents. There are far more complex market manipulation conspiracies that are well-documented (see: LIBOR scandal)
Furthermore, why haven't we heard anything from the SEC? They are an increasingly transparent organization. Why haven't they issued a press release or published their court filings on their website? Are we supposed to just trust a journalist's word and ability to verify that an anonymous "source familiar with the matter" isn't just bamboozling them?
> You're acting as if market manipulation is some far-out conspiracy theory rather than something relatively common.
Something of the scope you're suggesting has literally never happened, as far as I am aware. Certainly not recently (i.e. last forty years) in the US. Bet ya fifty dollars the SEC did in fact send this show-cause order.
Elon Musk knows as much about it as we do. It's not like he can call up the SEC and ask them to confirm/deny if they're taking action on him.
Sorry, but this story originally came from Bloomberg and I lost all faith in Bloomberg after they refused to retract the SuperMicro story. I will believe it when I see it on the sec.gov website. Until then it's as good as bullshit in my eyes.
> It's not like he can call up the SEC and ask them to confirm/deny if they're taking action on him.
He and his legal team will absolutely receive copies of any court filings in this case.
Individual filings won't be on sec.gov. You can check PACER, though.
This filing also indicates Musk's legal team chimed in about the tweet in response to the SEC's inquiry (page five). If that weren't the case, Musk would certainly contest that statement. This bit too:
> "According to counsel, immediately upon seeing Musk's 7:15 tweet for the first time after Musk had published it, Tesla's "Designated Securites Counsel" arranged to meet with Musk, and they drafted Musk's corrective 11:41 tweet together."
For an application to a court seeking that someone be held in contempt of court? Yes, this absolutely would be on sec.gov as a 'litigation release' and there are 2500 such examples listed there. If it were true and the SEC is just waiting to issue a press release, I think it's prudent to actually wait for that rather than believe some apocryphal document.
As for contesting the statement, who knows? He is not exactly the most stable individual these days (which is what makes him and his companies a natural target for shortsellers)
Almost as if assuming you know more about someone's identity than they do doesn't make you some critical-thinking free speech martyr, just a presumptuous preacher telling other people how to live and express themselves.