I asked him: "What is your message to individuals and collectives who do not consent to being regulated and choose to use private and peer to peer systems to get around that?"
his answer was too long to transcribe here but I'll post the video when it's up.
Could you tag me once its up please
might be rewindable here? I haven't checked yet
They’re still fighting us, and will keep fighting us.
We have not won whatsoever.
🎯 Too long, right?
I think you could have also asked him: "What is your message to individual and collectives who do not consent being regulated and choose to use public and client-server systems to get around that?" 🇺🇳
Here's my question: https://youtu.be/TqxDr_SjAgg?t=18747
I was glad I had my silk road shirt on for this one ;)
( nostr:npub1dgpt04w4c88wc0g262xaw8zvlm4mvwtmjhl0tn2sxtyjywsn6q4qt8ka3a you asked me to tag you)
Thanks for asking the question. Such an interesting answer.
What I found most interesting was this idea that somehow our society couldn't be "sustained" or even grow without the capacity for the government to monitor financial transactions. Like, what, somehow our world falls apart without the Bank Secrecy Act?
This reminds me of the early days of the internet, when academics like this would write op-eds or papers seriously making the argument "OK guys, Wild West is over, we're going to have to put borders on the Internet." As if (a) that's somehow essential for the system to operate and (b) you have ANY say in the matter.
While that might sound ridiculous, now that I think of it, "borders" have indeed been introduced to the internet via centralized social media platforms, and the fact that most people interact with "the internet" through one or another company with a California HQ.
But yeah, tl;dr -- strong disagree with that guy.
What a garbage ass response
The fuck? "Legitimate interests" my ass
