ESTheComposer

In case anyone just reads the headline, this is not a good result for the SEC. Judge reduced the fine from 2B to 125m (94%) and deemed retail sales of XRP was not a security.

SEC has been trying to label pretty much every crypto a security, and XRP is probably the closest thing to one, so if they couldn’t get this…

You cannot call any criticism of Israel or its hold over US politics anti-semitic just because Israel happens to be Jewish majority. When people criticize the US they aren't automatically anti America, any other country holds the same.

US presidents always visit Israel and cater to it if they want to be elected, it has 0 to do with Judaism or the fact that Israel is founded on Jewish principles.

I believe the issue here is how much sway Israel has on the US and how rabid many US politicians are about Israel (to the point where many straight up accuse you of anti semitism if you just criticize the country or their policies)

Also issues like where you are not allowed to refuse to work with Israel if you are an arms manufacturer in the US (but you can refuse to work with the US military). I know that part of that is due to Israel being part of the FMS list but they are also the largest recipient on it...

Reminds me of this story by Isaac Asimov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround_(story)

> Wow, aren't you the fallacy guy. Please, give me more fallacies!

Ad hominem

> I understand logical fallacies, and my point is that your original argument as stated way up the thread is materially different from the one you put into logical form.

I mean it's literally not, I state the same thing but shortened further up.

>So you don't get to accuse me of a logical fallacy when you're referring to an argument that you haven't articulated yet.

Ok first off, no one is "accusing" anyone of anything, I'm pointing out a literal fallacy you made. If you're wearing a blue shirt and I point out you're wearing a blue shirt, I'm not accusing you of wearing a blue shirt. And I've articulated my argument many times, including in it's literal formal argument form.

>I'm not sure if you have specific legal experience in this area but all of these claims are questionable to me; my understanding is that most of these things have little if any legal precedent and are a grey area at best. I'd be interested to see sources for these claims, since as I said, I don't know too much about this.

Yeah I'm not going to go trolling through the internet to find examples of this (if there are any, I would wager there aren't since I don't think people would be dumb enough to perform the situation you tried to use as an example) for someone who clearly is just getting angry and not even arguing in good faith.

You're going on about how I'm accusing you and how my argument isn't the same, and you've said I committed a fallacy (which you never even articulated btw), so I don't think there's any point in furthering this conversation. Seems like a waste of time.

> I absolutely expect CNN, Google, and any other website to serve me malware. You can find many historical examples of the largest ad networks serving up malware on just about any site in existence.

I would love to see a source of a large company like CNN knowingly serving malware in the guise of ads. I've never heard of that but I'm all ears; I feel like it would be big news if CNN knowingly put a crypto miner on your device.

> How should I legally/ethically block this malware without using a broad ad blocker?

I don't know but also now you're committing a fallacy known as "Irrelevant conclusion". Yes, there's a genuine question on how you can block malware without depriving website owners of their ad revenue, however it's irrelevant to the original argument of whether blocking ads is stealing (which we've somehow come to from a piracy argument but whatever). The argument becomes "Is blocking ads stealing when some of them give me malware", but that's separate from "Is blocking ads stealing".

Alternatively you might be trying to argue "but I block ads because some of them give me malware" which can be an appeal to pity[2], but I don't think you're trying to go that far.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity

> They get the same amount of residuals if someone doesn't watch something or if they pirate it.

Someone dying of natural causes and someone being murdered both end up with the person dying, that does not mean they're the same thing.

> primarily because you had to change/add more premises to your argument as part of your explanation.

I did no such thing, I was putting the argument into logical form[1]. When you do that you express the original argument in specifically semantic terms. I've been saying the same thing since the beginning, piracy is stealing, and by stealing I mean experiencing their work without paying. Putting it into specific terms is not changing my meaning.

Also I hope you realize saying "fallacy" is not equivalent to trying to call bs on me. If you think I've actually committed a fallacy, go ahead and let me know what it is, and if you don't actually know any formal logic, then I'm sure ChatGPT will give you some good ideas.

In regards to your webpage example, websites have a common expectation of loading to the home page for viewing for free. If you have a website that was not explicit about the requirement for payment before the user went on it, then no it's not the same thing, and in fact there's not even a contract with going to a website so there's no legal basis for your example either.

Your arguments are getting less and less in the same vein of piracy

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_form

> Do you use any ad blocker at all?

No

With your second question:

Tracking - Tracking isn't stealing, that's a privacy question.

Building a Profile - I mean not stealing but also vague so not sure what's the point of trying to argue this one? Like if you keep going with this line of thinking you end up with "you looked at me funny which made me feel weird so you're stealing by stealing my joy". (Absurd example but trying to show how abstract arguments don't end up working) Then we would probably loop back to fallacy of composition.

Malware - Serving malware is a criminal act and you can block it, but you're also not usually going to CNN.com and expecting them to download a crypto miner on your hardware. You are, however, expecting advertisements, hence why you're using an adblocker.

Bogging down your resources/other garbage - I mean idk, case by case basis.

You keep trying to paint with broad strokes but that's not how these things usually work. In my original example, it works because it's a simple transaction the artist wanted. Pay me 1$ for my art and you can view it. They created it privately with the intent of selling, and by downloading it for free, you're breaking that intent and depriving them of potential revenue.

Except because you now actually went out, downloaded/took it, and experienced it, it implies there was a non 0 interest in the work, therefore there is lost possible revenue since you might have eventually went and bought the work.

It's called a false equivalence fallacy[1] and more specifically it's called the fallacy of composition[2]. I don't know why I'm taking the time to do this but I'm going to assume you're genuine with wanting to learn so:

Essentially the original argument I made is

1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment.

2. Stealing is wrong

3. Pirating is stealing

So, 4. Pirating is wrong

You took my comment and attempted to do this:

1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment.

2. Stealing is wrong

3. Reading my comment for free is stealing

So, 4. Reading my comment for free is wrong

Except step 3 is an invalid assertion since we are on a public forum with accounts created for the express purpose of reading and writing on said public forum for free. Your argument makes the assumption that because an action (using something for free) is wrong in one instance, it must be wrong in all instances.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=A%20... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Thanks for actually contributing instead of being obtusely sarcastic...ah wait.

It's interesting that people devalue a good just because it's digital on a tech focused website named HackerNews lol.

> because if you call this stealing you’d also have apply the stealing label to blocking ads/trackers on the web

Yes that is quite literally also depriving them of revenue, and quite possibly their only source of revenue if they're a free website/app.

>taking advantage of free trials for services without any intent of becoming a subscriber

Yeah no, it's in the name...FREE TRIAL. It's literally given out for free.

>content cartels

Yes how dare companies/people want to get paid for their creative works, must be a cartel.

Please take a logic class before you commit a really basic fallacy. You're on a public forum in which you knowingly created an account. It's nowhere near the same argument as piracy.

You're using a false analogy. You're trying to make a parallel between not paying for an item/produced good and simply not giving someone money in an attempt to downplay not paying for created material.

You are depriving them of revenue, it is stealing.

It doesn't matter how many times you can sell the same item. If someone spent time and money producing something, no matter how small, and they dictate they want $x for you to own/consume it, then you are stealing if you don't give them $x for it.

In terms of "when" it's stolen re downloading vs watching, I would say when you download it personally as you now have access to the content without paying.

You are using the age old argument of “I wouldn’t have bought it anyway, so they won’t get anything from me either way”

This is just a roundabout way of excusing stealing. If the creator of something says “if you want to view my work, you must pay me a dollar”, then yes it is stealing (immoral) if you view it without paying. The context around it as to whether you would’ve watched it anyway is irrelevant.

Apply the same logic to literally any other item and your argument falls apart (I wouldn’t have bought that chocolate bar anyway so they’re not really losing money from me)

The irony here is from their post history they are a business owner that made 4m in profits last year. Guess it’s a moral imperative to steal from them eh?

You should probably learn what an ETF is…it’s one of the most basic investment vehicles that will grow your savings reliably over the years, and most people put their 401ks (or equivalent) into them, so yes a ton of normal people know what it is.

The SEC enforces regulation (or it’s supposed to at least) around securities passed by congress.

The real question here is if you don’t even know a basic finance term like ETF, why are you trying to talk down to my statement and crypto when you clearly have no knowledge of the sector? It’s just ignorant

You don’t know what an ETF is or the SEC?

Yes the corpse that just got approved for a BTC ETF with an ETH ETF on the way and with multiple companies winning lawsuits against the SEC. But sure, because it's not on HN anymore it's a corpse.

Yeah it's understandable why though from your own article:

>The PCPSR poll found that 44% of Gazans say they have enough food and water for a day or two, and 56% say that they do not. Almost two-thirds of Gazan respondents - 64% - said a member of their family had been killed or injured in the war.

>Fifty-two percent of Gazans and 85% of West Bank respondents - or 72% of Palestinian respondents overall - voiced satisfaction with the role of Hamas in the war. Only 11% of Palestinian voiced satisfaction with PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

I would wager that actually means they're satisfied that there's "someone fighting for their rights" rather than they're satisfied with terrorism.

From another article[1]: "Israelis reject U.S. pressure to shift the war in Gaza to a phase with less heavy bombing in populated areas by a ratio of 2-1...Only 23 percent answered that Israel should agree to the U.S. demand "that Israel shifts to a different phase of the war in Gaza, with an emphasis on reducing the heavy bombing of densely populated areas...A full 75 percent of Jewish respondents said Israel should ignore the U.S. pressure"

So it seems the same number of Jewish respondents are ok with the genocide occurring right now. Like I said in another comment, both Hamas and Israel seem to have genocidal intentions but only one side is actively pursuing it at the moment.

[1]: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-02/ty-article/75...

A bit of a strange take considering every one of your points applies much more to Palestine than Israel.

>I was in my 20s and remember the feeling in the air after Al Qaeda members hijacked commercial planes and flew them into WTC in 2001. Fear, Anger, A bit of revenge

Yeah the people in Gaza feel that pretty much every day

>Many of Americans, including soviet immigrants, enlisted in the army driven by that feeling.

They also feel this, which leads to them joining Hamas and is part of the reason there are normal Palestinians who support Hamas. Terrorists don't come out of no where.

>Israelis lost significantly more of their population percentage-wise during October 7 attack perpetrated by the official government of Gaza AND as we know now, some Gazan civilians.

Yeah I mean again just flip that and the people in Gaza experience that at a much higher rate

>With that in mind, its fairly simple for me to empathize with the Israeli public who are angry at the death of their fellow citizens and want Hamas to be punished.

Same but I also empathize with all the Palestinians just trying to live their lives in an open air prison and want revenge. I think both Hamas and Israel have genocidal intent, but one has much more power and is actually carrying it out right now.

> Very plainly, you're risking normal money on a venture that doesn't promote anything other than greed and black market transactions.

You could quite say the same about any privacy or encryption or really anything that protects you from a centralized entity taking your rights/property. It’s a bit absurd that people are really that blind that they think this is all there is to crypto. Your same logic would apply to dollars in that case as well.

There's a difference between being bearish and being fully anti crypto and just spreading conjecture. Being bearish is very normal, being rabidly anti crypto on every crypto thread on HN like a couple folks who are in this very thread is being in a bubble.

Ok and from my anecdotal experience the opposite is true, so I guess we're at a crossroads here. Either way doesn't have bearing on how HN views crypto

This guy is in every single crypto thread here spouting anti crypto nonsense. Don't expect an actual in depth take.

People in HN are in a massive bubble; you see it with other topics too. It's nice to look here for some tech sentiment and interesting article sometimes, but for most cutting edge stuff this forum is always full of naysayers.