Maxine Waters wants to ban tech companies from making cryptocurrencies (closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

seanreisk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,296
From CNN: "New proposed legislation drafted by Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters' staff could stop Facebook's cryptocurrency ambitions. The proposal, still just a discussion draft, is titled the "Keep Big Tech Out of Finance Act." It details rules that would prohibit large internet platforms from becoming financial institutions or offering cryptocurrencies."

I am of two minds - I don't like cryptocurrency. I don't like Facebook. But I do like the idea of someone with deep pockets being responsible for a cryptocurrency, and while I do approve of congress regulating an industry for the public good, I don't like them interfering with an industry by pre-banning an idea before it's been shown to be good or bad.


P.S. If congress wants to meddle or investigate, they can tell me why Judas Priest isn't in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. C'mon, we're talking Judas Priest! 19 hits on the Billboard charts, true British metal, and if you're a teenage head banger who's just bought his first guitar and you can't play 'Breaking The Law' within 30 days, you're never going to be a guitarist.
 
Last edited:

Lakados

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,031
You can’t litigate it this way, either ban it or open it to everybody. You can’t pick and choose how some can and some can’t. They will just find loopholes, and where does it end? What if a large game company made their in game MMO currency a crypto currency? Does that count? Or what if they are simply an “investor” in a small startup crypto currency does that count too?
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
while I do approve of congress regulating an industry for the public good, I don't like them interfering with an industry by pre-banning an idea before it's been shown to be good or bad.
It's bad.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to coin money, regulate interstate commerce, and pass any law 'necessary and proper' to exercise it's enumerated powers. IMO, regulating this sort of thing is no different than using their authority to shut down previous 'alternative currency' scams like E-gold.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,567
So Paypal would be illegal I guess.... what about apple pay. They may not be crypto currencies but sounds like they could be lumped in. If you are going to allow things like Paypal and Apple pay, what stops facebook from simply spinning off their own subsidiary and just use real money. Perhaps they pay people a little bit for allowing them access to more personal info... and serving them more direct ads. Give them a discount on facebook banking fees when they fill out personal surveys.

I don't know of passing laws makes things any better. Companies like Facebook will find another route to the same goal that we are likely to be worse. lol
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,466
Eeek eeek oook damn yt can't have no privacy dem nadzees and russans n shieyt
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,581
Frankly, I'm surprised she didn't try to claim crypto is racist. That seems to be her response to anything she doesn't like...
Everything is racist and people are pointing it all out. Seems all we do anymore.
 

Jinto

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
1,650
Nothing wrong with the legislation (who knows if it will even pass). There is a reason that there is a concept of 'legal tender'. Once upon a time everyone and anyone could issue currency and that did not turn out very well. Crypto is a bit of a grey area, however as larger players come in, it is right to scrutinize it.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,581
It's bad.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to coin money, regulate interstate commerce, and pass any law 'necessary and proper' to exercise it's enumerated powers. IMO, regulating this sort of thing is no different than using their authority to shut down previous 'alternative currency' scams like E-gold.
They are not scams per se. Bitcoin as an investment is a scam, but that's different. Other currencies are possibly a threat to the single national currency, so no alternate currencies are allowed. In the past it were had many regional currencies which interfered with interstate commerce by accident and design. However that latter point is not valid here. But if an single national current is integral to interstate commerce and the idea these undermine that would be cause for government interference. I haven't seen that justified.

The real problem they don't like is it allows electronic transfer of funds without the involvement of a payment service or bank. And the Far Left is weaponizing those institutions to silence voices and punish people they don't like. Crypto offers an alternative that bypasses those. Also at the same time those services don't get a cut of the transaction. I'm sure the latter point has nothing to do with it.
 

Gamer X

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2019
Messages
347
So Paypal would be illegal I guess.... what about apple pay. They may not be crypto currencies but sounds like they could be lumped in. If you are going to allow things like Paypal and Apple pay, what stops facebook from simply spinning off their own subsidiary and just use real money. Perhaps they pay people a little bit for allowing them access to more personal info... and serving them more direct ads. Give them a discount on facebook banking fees when they fill out personal surveys.

I don't know of passing laws makes things any better. Companies like Facebook will find another route to the same goal that we are likely to be worse. lol

No, paypal is based directly off the dollar.
You take $1 USD and place it in your paypal account, you still have $1 USD. Same with apple pay. Those (Apple Pay/PayPal) are not currencies just payment methods, like a credit card or debit card.

Cryptos are currency.
But their value can change drastically and their exchange is not regulated.


Cryptos need to be regulated.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,292
Do you really need a clear definition on this?
You can't give me a clear definition. Only your opinion.

edit: I also don't need a link to a dictionary. My point is defining exactly what IS or IS NOT "racist" is not a matter of science. It is purely subjective. Only the political left has weaponized it and used it to divide people, as if they own semantics itself.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sufu
like this

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,637
From CNN: "New proposed legislation drafted by Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters' staff could stop Facebook's cryptocurrency ambitions. The proposal, still just a discussion draft, is titled the "Keep Big Tech Out of Finance Act." It details rules that would prohibit large internet platforms from becoming financial institutions or offering cryptocurrencies."

I am of two minds - I don't like cryptocurrency. I don't like Facebook. But I do like the idea of someone with deep pockets being responsible for a cryptocurrency, and while I do approve of congress regulating an industry for the public good, I don't like them interfering with an industry by pre-banning an idea before it's been shown to be good or bad.


P.S. If congress wants to meddle or investigate, they can tell me why Judas Priest isn't in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. C'mon, we're talking Judas Priest! 19 hits on the Billboard charts, true British metal, and if you're a teenage head banger who's just bought his first guitar and you can't play 'Breaking The Law' within 30 days, you're never going to be a guitarist.
Well, after all, there really is nothing else that needs to be done, we now have time to waste on this. :rolleyes: I do not do cryptocurrencies myself, I hated when the video card market prices went through the roof because of it but, that does not mean I was trying to prevent it from happening.
 

tempertantrum

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
382
Good. There's no way in hell they should be allowed to have their own currencies, governments already have enough problems with holding them accountable for various purposes (taxes to pay for government services, record keeping for legal purposes, etc.). Having a non-transparent and potentially manipulable currency they can do whatever they want with would be disastrous.
 

tempertantrum

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
382
You can't give me a clear definition. Only your opinion.

edit: I also don't need a link to a dictionary. My point is defining exactly what IS or IS NOT "racist" is not a matter of science. It is purely subjective. Only the political left has weaponized it and used it to divide people, as if they own semantics itself.
I'm sorry but asking to actually be treated fairly isn't "Weaponizing" racism. It's fighting back. It's just like the "class wars," it's only a "War" when working people fight back. There's a ton of research about the definition and impacts of racism. The very fact that people are throwing this in the face of a black woman in spite of having a president telling people of color to go back to their own country is one of a million pieces of proof racism still exists.

Honestly, if you don't know who Maxine Waters really is, or the awesome job she does around holding people and companies accountable, then people should try looking past the race issues, and instead see the work she does to help people.
 

smarenwolf

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
111
1) Trump telling "the Squad" to go back to their "own" country isn't racism, it's 4D chess. It caused enough outrage for people to not notice the change to asylum laws.

2) Some people are racist, yes. Basically no one denies that. But it's quite a far jump from "Some people are racist" to "everything is racist and white people (racist much? :D) need to pay reparations" (I know, not many say that either).
Thing is, most people are treated equally. Yes, there's a trend amongst individuals to treat whites better than blacks and there's a trend amongst culture to treat women better than men.

But let's see how "well" I am treated in a group where I am part of the "out-group."

The same stuff is going on on this page as well... See AMD/Alienware-Frank-Hire-Thread. In-Group: "Alienware is not gaming, reeeee, you have to build your own rig!" / Out-Group: "Buying Alienware disqualifies you as a gamer"

It's just in/out-group mentality.
 

Comixbooks

Ignore Me
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
14,665
Impeach #00 her seriously it comes to a point in life where you are too old and don't care anymore or physically unable to think.
 

tempertantrum

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
382
1) Trump telling "the Squad" to go back to their "own" country isn't racism, it's 4D chess. It caused enough outrage for people to not notice the change to asylum laws.

2) Some people are racist, yes. Basically no one denies that. But it's quite a far jump from "Some people are racist" to "everything is racist and white people (racist much? :D) need to pay reparations" (I know, not many say that either).
Thing is, most people are treated equally. Yes, there's a trend amongst individuals to treat whites better than blacks and there's a trend amongst culture to treat women better than men.

But let's see how "well" I am treated in a group where I am part of the "out-group."

The same stuff is going on on this page as well... See AMD/Alienware-Frank-Hire-Thread. In-Group: "Alienware is not gaming, reeeee, you have to build your own rig!" / Out-Group: "Buying Alienware disqualifies you as a gamer"

It's just in/out-group mentality.
1.) Yes, it is 4-d Chess, but it's also absolutely racist. It's a specific phrase that has been used heavily and repeatedly throughout history as a racist jab. It's a threat - and coming from the president, it signals that it's ok to try to kick people of color out.

2.) We are all biased - it's impossible to not be biased in a world where whiteness is the "default," it's considered normal, and anything else is considered "different. Even black people internalize subtle ways of thinking that are problematic. White people tend to be worse just because they don't directly experience the racism. Just like Christians don't generally experience the bias against non-Christians, men don't experience what it's like to be a woman. These kinds of biases are well studied, and we know they exist (regardless of whether or not people believe in or see them).
2b. Out groups are a *partial* explanation. However, with most outgroups, you can simply walk away. There is no walking away from racism. It's everywhere, not intentionally, but just as a side effect of a lack of perspective and because the system was built around it for so long. It's also very out there. Easy examples are responses to resumes, emails, criticisms, books, etc. with "non-white" (and non male!) names. We KNOW that people respond differently if they think the person is not-white or not male.
 

tempertantrum

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
382
Or stop weaponizing vacuous moral superiority for gain and talk about issues instead.
Think about racism like physical violence. You're basically telling a person who is being punched because they are black that they can't punch back because punching is wrong. That's f'd up.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,292
I'm sorry but asking to actually be treated fairly isn't "Weaponizing" racism. It's fighting back.
Yeah, ask some poor white guy who lost a job promotion to a lesser qualified candidate due strictly to race (Affirmative Action) about "institutional racism", or being "treated fairly". Like I said, it's all about perspective. You don't own the words "racism" or "racist" - because they mean different things to different people. Get it?
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,581
Think about racism like physical violence. You're basically telling a person who is being punched because they are black that they can't punch back because punching is wrong. That's f'd up.
No effen clue about how you got there.
 

MangoSeed

Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
709
Yeah, ask some poor white guy who lost a job promotion to a lesser qualified candidate due strictly to race (Affirmative Action) about "institutional racism", or being "treated fairly". Like I said, it's all about perspective. You don't own the words "racism" or "racist" - because they mean different things to different people. Get it?
I'm pretty sure there are vastly more "poor black guys" who lose out on career advances due to race than "poor white guys". Hopefully you're not suggesting that people shouldn't point out unfairness in the system because a few white dudes get hurt too.
 

smarenwolf

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
111
1.) Yes, it is 4-d Chess, but it's also absolutely racist. It's a specific phrase that has been used heavily and repeatedly throughout history as a racist jab. It's a threat - and coming from the president, it signals that it's ok to try to kick people of color out.

2.) We are all biased - it's impossible to not be biased in a world where whiteness is the "default," it's considered normal, and anything else is considered "different. Even black people internalize subtle ways of thinking that are problematic. White people tend to be worse just because they don't directly experience the racism. Just like Christians don't generally experience the bias against non-Christians, men don't experience what it's like to be a woman. These kinds of biases are well studied, and we know they exist (regardless of whether or not people believe in or see them).
2b. Out groups are a *partial* explanation. However, with most outgroups, you can simply walk away. There is no walking away from racism. It's everywhere, not intentionally, but just as a side effect of a lack of perspective and because the system was built around it for so long. It's also very out there. Easy examples are responses to resumes, emails, criticisms, books, etc. with "non-white" (and non male!) names. We KNOW that people respond differently if they think the person is not-white or not male.
"even black people" ... I hope you realize how (actually) racist that statement is, yes?

Yeah, ask some poor white guy who lost a job promotion to a lesser qualified candidate due strictly to race (Affirmative Action) about "institutional racism", or being "treated fairly". Like I said, it's all about perspective. You don't own the words "racism" or "racist" - because they mean different things to different people. Get it?
Blacks: Might not get a job because they're black, might need to be a bit more cautious when dealing with police, might get killed by other blacks
Whites: Might not get a job because they're not black, will get demonized because of their skin colour, might have to be cautious where they go
Males: Way higher chance to get assaulted, robbed, killed, beaten or just die to to workplace danger
Females: Way higher chance to not get taken seriously

Every group has it's problem, some are bigger, some are only there because of outrage culture.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,292
I'm pretty sure there are vastly more "poor black guys" who lose out on career advances due to race than "poor white guys". Hopefully you're not suggesting that people shouldn't point out unfairness in the system because a few white dudes get hurt too.
Uh, no. I'm simply pointing out that white guys can be victims of "institutional" racism, too. I'm also of the firm opinion that only equal opportunities can be legislated by the government, not equal outcomes. At that point you are simply using race as a political tool, which is exactly what the LEFT does on a daily basis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top