SELF-CUSTODY OR BUST:
Another risk of custodial bitcoin and crypto platforms instead of self-custody:
If an entity declares bankruptcy, and you withdrew in the 90 days before that date, you can be SUED to get those funds back to settle the debts of "other" creditors.
This is currently happening to millions who used Celsius
also bought his book recently and have always enjoyed the content. Do you have a podcast as well?
My latest article in the National Interest details the rise of the "litigation finance" industry, and how billions of dollars are being weaponized by lawyers and financiers to manipulate the US juridical system and hike the cost of goods you enjoy
Oh wow, similar to the cannabis clubs and speakeasies, yes.
I will do some research on this for medical options and see what I can learn and advocate for! Thank you.
I've just been a fan of DPC as it's more established and now (thanks to a recent bill change), people can use health saving accounts to pay for the subscription
Is PMA personal medical assistant? Would love to know more
If this phone can get a noncustodial bitcoin wallet via the App Store, it’s game over
E-ink phone!
Bitcoin doesn't need POSITIVE rights policy.
Bitcoin has NEGATIVE rights recognition.
Bitcoin is code. Using computers, running nodes, batching transactions, signing with private and public keys doesn't need extra "rights".
"freedom from" not "freedom to"
Let's do a thought experiment on nostr, threads, and the fediverse.
as a note: I use the nostr protocol actively. I zap the social feed and use the DMs. Mastodon I've had for years and have hosted many instances.
The pivot of Meta in the last few years to integrate open-source (LLM, fediverse, etc.) shows that it's still a relevant, interesting, and innovative company. Anyone has to admit that.
Now, Meta's Threads evolves from the fediverse / activity pub to become a nostr client without a bridge (now available via mostr pub). It has a massive, centrally-powered relay. It's heavily moderated. For compliance, it likely won't allow EU users and probably won't integrate bitcoin lightning zaps. They will have some kind of NIP05 verification, but they'll likely have their "premium" features as their set-up.
I can see all of this co-existing, despite the inevitable clash. And we shouldn't begrudge anyone who tries to experiment. Social networks are decentralizing in realtime, and there will be a host of choices and options depending on your use case, community, and even threat model.
Threads may evolve to become a more moderation-friendly and brand-friendly client/relay (with all that entails), while any and all nostr clients will choose whether or not to mute or disable the connectivity.
Overall, I want sovereign freedom technology to win. One that will be decentralized, borderless, and censorship-resistant. But we should still praise innovation and experimentation to figure out how larger players can use more freedom tools and we can eat away at the portion of the KYC Internet that threatens our liberties.
So, cheers to the fediverse, to the nostr protocol, and a better and brighter future for the Internet
https://primal.net/e/note1cfelv9xl6h2c0gvn7snlmu7w39f76zc4uugeqfatzprtc9h96sqs550a4z
hello Dubai 🇦🇪
Vanguard CEO. All their models are broken.
https://video.nostr.build/185d3c1da8fa2ac79f12dfeee5b6a8002759bf3ce510e1e95398a5a16c80a8dd.mp4
massive cope
wrote this six years ago, but still relevant.
If any nostrians or bitcoiners are working on healthcare solutions, I want to talk to you!
–––>The healthcare system is a racket — direct primary care could fix it
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
that is a definitional clause to explain what the forced divestiture applies to. The bill mentions ByteDance and TikTok specifically, “covered company” is the legal nomenclature per the US code. Any attempt to go beyond TikTok would be a direct constitutional challenge
Because Section 230 isn't at the heart of any of these proposals. Where it's been tried by courts, they've always supported it.
As for ISPs, thankfully we'll all be on satellite/relay internet soon enough
With a GOP president, popular media narrative is that they're either stupid or evil
Many neoliberal types swallow this whole for Bitcoin
It's either a dumb invention that serves no purpose, or an evil borderless tool of climate criminals + tax cheats
Can't be both
agree! thankfully the bill is just a forced divestiture. Same thing was applied to GRINDR when we found out the CCP was accessing people's sexual histories, HIV status, etc.
The difference there was that it was ordered by CFIUS than an act of Congress.
Online platforms are not common carriers, at least not according to Title II. Nor should they be. They shouldn't be forced to carry all content, and that's a good thing.
Recent court cases in Florida and Texas have ruled this way, and the Supreme Court is due to write an opinion on the state-level rules that would have made it illegal to curate content on social media.
Removing the "right to censor" also means requiring blogs to host all comments and spam regardless of content.
The main issue on censorship and moderation stems from the jawboning at the hands of US agencies – directly or indirectly – which should absolutely be illegal.
Ultimately, nostr can win not because social media platforms will be "forced" to carry all content, but because online users will recognize that the censorious platforms suck and will choose to go elsewhere. I'd rather have that freedom to choose, and continue Section 230 as it applies to online platforms, than have the government make that determination.
Love and respect, Sir Odell, but not correct.
Looking at the bill, it's entirely limited to forced divestiture of a specific social media video app owned by a firm in a state deemed to be a "foreign adversary," which is strictly defined in US code: North Korea, Iran, China, Cuba, Russia, and Venezuela.
There is no legal way to apply this to any other technology, company, or entity. It's actually a good thing if we care about getting people off CCP spyware.
I wrote about it here:
https://consumerchoicecenter.org/the-best-answer-to-tiktok-is-a-forced-divestiture/
As for Section 230, the cases before the Supreme Court this term are appeals where tech firms won and strengthened Section 230, and most legal observers say they have no chance. I'm inclined to agree. The only way to undo Section 230 is by Congress. In case that happens, there would be plenty of good privacy and tech advocates battling against that.
As for free speech and nostr, there are a lot of lessons and nostr is well placed as a decentralized protocol. Very bullish.
I just wouldn't take the arguments of the TikTok lawyers too seriously, since CCP want to expand their social credit score system. Maybe that's why they got their military to hack everyone's credit scores in the US:
https://thespectator.com/topic/chinese-communist-party-credit-history-equifax/