If enough people choose to use Libra, it can eventually become a de facto (or even the only) payment method.

Facebook is us: 2.4B users willingly give Zuck the power to make potentially high impact decisions like this.

There's a very big difference between:

"I live in and probably even vote in a country that believes I am sovereign, which thus derives its right to wield authority."

and:

"I signed up for Libra so I could more easily use Facebook, which I only joined to keep up with my kids, and thus I accept Mark Zuckerberg's authority over monetary policy, even considering I have no input on it whatsoever"

Do you have a lot of influence over US monetary policy?

I live and vote in US and as soon as the majority of US residents decide to vote contrary to my wishes I have to accept the authority of whoever they elect.

Frankly I don’t see much difference.

I have infinitely more control over it compared with anything I might have with Libra, because that's zero. I can also:

- run for office

- build a career in monetary policy

- join a campaign

- start a non profit advocacy group

- lobby my representatives

These only have any effect (if they're even possible otherwise) because we're a democracy with elections. Can I personally change the supply of USD? No, but that's because that kind of change affects the entire world, and there should be a serious process around it. But my point is that there _is_ a process, rooted in (if imperfectly) the fundamental liberal democratic belief in humankind's right to self- governance.

Facebook has no such guarantees. It's a serious threat to those principles. There's a huge difference.

You can just as easily:

1. Build a competing product (social network, cryptocurrency, etc).

2. Build a career at FB, to influence from within.

3. Join/start a campaign against/for Facebook to influence its (potential) users.

4. Lobby your representatives to change whatever you don’t like about FB.

Maybe you have a point but so far it’s not very clear :)

Then allow me to be: The US guarantees your right to participate in its governance and decision making process. Facebook does not. Ceding control over monetary policy to an organization absent those guarantees is corrosive to our society, our government, and the fundamental principle of self-governance.

===

Everything on your list is only possible because we live in a free society with representation and authority over corporations. If we start ceding more and more core governing functions to corporations, how long do you think it will be legal to build a competing product? How long do you think you'll be able to lobby your representatives? How long do you think you'll have the right to start a PR campaign against Facebook? Look at your favorite authoritarian regimes for the answers.

With this I agree. Though are we really ceding control over monetary policy to FB?

Hmm, that's a fair question. The way I see it, monetary policy is essentially managing the supply of money. The US creates and follows its monetary policy to manage its currency, the USD. This is effective at doing things like regulating inflation or easing recessions because we have one currency here: the USD.

But if Libra starts challenging the USD even just in the US, let alone in the rest of the world, suddenly there are two dials to turn: one for USD and one for Libra. As more value is held in Libra rather than USD, US monetary policy becomes less effective.

And this is just the money supply issue. Others have raised all kinds of issues about fiduciary duties, privacy, regulation, confiscation, security, and so on. While I wouldn't at all argue that the US approach to these issues is perfect (far from it), there are at least some laws and so on. Nothing would prevent Facebook from freezing your wallet, or freezing your account, or banning you from their platform, or tracking metadata on your purchases. I would also assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that law enforcement doesn't have to jump through the same hoops to get your payment/account information, so there's potentially more loss of rights there.

This is exactly what Facebook's vision for Libra is: an alternative currency to the USD shared internationally and controlled by their consortium. They say it will be pinned to the USD and other stable currencies, but there's nothing holding them to this (and in fact most cryptocurrencies play with this). I deeply believe allowing this to happen would be a grave mistake for all of us.

Is your objection primarily to FB controlling the cryptocurrency, or to the idea of (any) cryptocurrency threatening the USD?

I think when people aren't in control of the currency they use, as in can't change the supply of it, really bad things happen. Like, many more people would have died without the QE programs (recessions and depressions kill people). That's a major goal of CCs, and one of the main reasons I'm against them.

I didn't select the US government. I have no ticket to that ride.

Please stop freeloading on our electricity, food, sanitation, roads, police/fire/education, the US military, and thousands of other services, renounce your citizenship, and leave at your earliest convenience. The US is pretty frothy about undocumented immigrants these days, so I would advise you not to dither.

I don't live in the us so I'm not using your electricity. I'd argue the pettiness of your argument if it were at least applicable.

Then s/US/<your country>. It applies equally.

You know not voting isn't a choice for some people, right?

Oh you mean like, felon/child/etc. suffrage? I'm fully in favor of extending the franchise to every living American; I think it's a fundamental right and morally outrageous that we ever deny it.

But I don't think that that means representative democracy in the US is a sham, equivalent to the level of representation I have at Facebook (again, zero). That would be a strawman.