Twitter Moves To Ban Crypto Ads (techcrunch.com) 58
An anonymous reader shares a report: Twitter is the latest social service to boot out cryptocurrency advertisers. The company told Reuters it will be launching a new policy this week to prohibit the advertising of token sales/initial coin offerings (ICOs), and crypto wallet services. Ads for cryptocurrency exchanges will also be banned -- with some limited exceptions. Facebook announced a ban in January, while Google said earlier this month that it will ban them from June. In a statement, the company said, "We are committed to ensuring the safety of the Twitter community. As such, we have added a new policy for Twitter Ads relating to cryptocurrency. Under this new policy, the advertisement of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and token sales will be prohibited globally."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
go find a billion $$$ and start your own competitor
no one is stopping you
Adblocker (Score:2)
I banned ads altogether from getting into my browser.
Don't care if they are regular ads or "crypto ads", whatever that may be as a special kind of ad.
"ICOs, token sales and crypto-wallet services". (Score:5, Informative)
ICOs are, basically, scams right from the start: they are people saying "hey, give me money and I will give you a token that has collectable value because I say it does" (but probably not). Token sales may or may not be scams. Wallets shouldn't be scams per se, but I guess a lot of people advertising wallets may not include the fine print "this wallet has a backdoor so I can haz yr koinz.".
FWIW, the Reuters article under discussion is actually here. I don't know why the link in the article is to a reprint instead of to the article. https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"hey, give me money and I will give you a token that has collectable (sic) value because I say it does"
How is this substantially different from the NYSE? Other than widespread acceptance of the NYSE?
Re:"ICOs, token sales and crypto-wallet services". (Score:5, Insightful)
"Other than widespread acceptance of the NYSE?"
You say that as if it's a minor thing. Financial markets exist, and they are heavily regulated with lots of oversight. On occasion they fail, can be subject to (legal to illegal) manipulation, can host bad actors, but that's a far cry from "it's all the same shit".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"ICOs, token sales and crypto-wallet services". (Score:4, Interesting)
The main difference is that the gold peddlers on TV are regulated, you can file a complaint if you get scammed, and they will be in deep shit. Much of this doesn't apply to ICOs because they are not asking for money, they're asking for cryptocurrency.
They say "here's a bullshit token we've conjured out of nothing, we say it's going to have some value, and we say its current value is X and will certainly grow, send us 1 ETH (Ethereum) minimum for Y tokens".
You basically send a virtual coin and receive some virtual tokens. None of this is properly covered by law because none of those cryptocurrencies have an intrinsic value or a value which is backed up by something. They're just funny money.
Disclaimer: I am a cryptocurrency believer, I think the cryptomarket will evolve and become part of our lives in a few years, but right now it's a Wild West and ICOs should be outright banned until they are properly covered by law.
Re: (Score:2)
A share of stock in a company actually gives you a tiny percentage of ownership in that company. It's not a vague promise to deliver a share of ownership at some later date, which is what an ICO is.
When you buy into an ICO, all they have is a plan to eventually create a cryptocurrency. You get no coins... just a vague promise that they'll eventually give you some once they get around to creating them.
To be fair, a few of them actually have created a cryptocurrency and delivered coins, but most have either
Re: "ICOs, token sales and crypto-wallet services" (Score:2)
And that tiny share of ownership entitled you to, what, what?
Not like you can go to the head office and do anything, unless you own a lot of shares, then you can maybe coerce someone into something.
Re: (Score:3)
For simplicity, we'll ignore the difference between common and preferred stock. In general, owning a share entitles you to a share of any dividend the company pays. If the share is not a non-voting series, it also entitles you to a vote on the appointment of people to the board of directors and any other company matters that the board decides to hold a vote on. Finally, if the company goes bankrupt, it entitles you to a share of what's left over, if anything, after creditors and bondholders have been pai
Re: (Score:2)
Owning cryptocurrency sometimes gets you in to vote on forks, network changes, and true splits.
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming you ever get the cryptocurrency. Quite a few ICOs have turned out to be scams.
You get the shares of stocks that you buy. Worst case, you get suckered into a buying a worthless stock, but you will actually own the worthless shares that you bought.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: "ICOs, token sales and crypto-wallet services" (Score:2)
I think you nailed it first time.
Re: "ICOs, token sales and crypto-wallet services" (Score:2)
Ah. So the NYSE is an auction, while crypto currency markets are, um, something else.
And the objects, stock certificates or crypto keys, are, well, intrinsically the same, worth what you think they are. Or else someone else thinks they are.
The market mechanism isn't my point, it's the value assessment and intrinsic value, if any.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unauthorized/Illegal Content (Score:2)
Aside from the lack of gov't oversite on the cryptocurrency, there was another issue raised publicly last week regarding the storage of non-financial info in the blockchain. The types of info found stored were identified links to kiddie porn (or, actual images) and dark websites. Given the distributed nature of the blockchain, this meant the illegal distribution and possession of this information given current laws.
I don't see anyone fixing the potential security issues, removing this info, and rebuilding
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's just one placed by a Chupacabra: "Will bite livestock for blurry photo ops"
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook bans crypto add? (Score:1)
Re: Facebook bans crypto ads? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin's actually fine, really. ETH arguably is fine, too, as well as a few non-mineable coins with high market valuation.
Everything else's an all-or-nothing gamble, and that's all there is to it.
Mod msmash -1 Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop calling them "crypto ads." It's terribly misleading. Your fucking troll headline makes it sound like Twitter doesn't want users talking about GnuPG or something like that.
msmash, since you kept the submitter anonymous but did the posting, you're accountable and we assume you are the person who decided to make the headline misleading. That means you're either a malicious piece of shit, or too stupid to be trying to cover tech stories. Either way, we're all hoping your boss notices and then does something about you.
Re: (Score:1)
Yet somehow everyone understands what's being talked about except one person: you.
So who's the odd one out?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's where reading TFS helps.
I understand there might be a confusion of terms, but really, context is key.
When I say "Apple" it could be the fruit, the company or something else entirely - context helps.
That's why I tend to lash out when someone's complaining "waah that word has a different meaning than the one I thought it had".
Nope (was Re:Mod msmash -1 Troll) (Score:2)
Perhaps the commonly accepted meaning is changing but for now just saying "crypto" will be ambiguous.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe me, since I did get pretty pissed off, except..
..wrong! Totally and completely wrong! People only understood it with the summary; the headline alone definitely tricked lots of people, because it's ambiguous, but the usual meaning of the word is other than what he meant. And headlines shouldn't do that.
Headline: war4peace's ass gets rammed!
Summary: war4peace was surprised to come home today to fin
Re: (Score:2)
My ass getting rammed would have been a more newsworthy story but I get your point :)
why only "crypto"? (Score:1)
The problem with advertisement is that companies have to lie to compete with others. The problem with companies is that they need to make an as large as possible profit, no matter what.
Crypto (Score:3)
Editorial (Score:3)
Can we please start using the full word "cryptocurrency" when referring to cryptocurrency, and not the shorthand "crypto," which could also refer to "cryptology" or "cryptography?" A ban on cryptography advertising would be cause for alarm for every IT professional. A ban on cryptocurrency, not so much. Much obliged.
Why would you ban cryptography? (Score:3)
Does "crypto" now only mean currency? (Score:3)
(Perhaps because that's what it has mostly meant up to now.)
Then again, language does evolve. Are we seeing such a change, is the headline just lazy?
Re: (Score:2)
Are we seeing such a change, is the headline just lazy?
Sadly, I think we are seeing such a change. Which I find really, really annoying, since crypto(graphy) has been my livelihood for 20 years and it'll probably take me a decade to redirect my mental pointer, but the word "crypto" has gone mainstream, and in the mainstream it means "cryptocurrency".
Crypto ads (Score:2)
As one service censors anther service embraces freedom of speech.
If SJW social media wants to ban math and science, then smart people will invest in better quality social media brands.
Yes, banks are scared shLess of cryptocurrency (Score:1)
It has nothing to do with protecting their product (aka you, the user).
Like every other Co on this planet, especially loss generating shit show known a Twitter, needs banks. Banks hate crypto-currencies. They know it spells the end for them. So, what they do? They coerce businesses to go against it.
Cryptos. (Score:1)