Are you outraged that CZ, who admitted to using Binance to help weapons dealers, drug cartels and human traffickers launder their ill-gotten gains, was only sentenced to 4 months and then received a pardon?

Our government prosecuted two crypto crooks, one of them stole money from rich people and the other one worked for terrorists. The one who worked with terrorists is a free man and the one who stole from a cartel of predatory financial institutions is in jail for 25 years. That's an indefensible fact pattern.

I'm sorry but the legal system isn't and shouldn't be designed to reward compliance. The fact that it's doing that means the system is wrong. It's supposed to determine guilt and then hand out reasonable sentences. Your comment is anti-rights advocacy.

In this scenario, SBF is a the victim of a massive influence peddling scheme. It's just like Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. When you make powerful people look like morons, you go to jail. That's cruel and unusual. SBF was sentenced to 25 years so that Sequoia could tell their insurers that they were swindled by a master criminal instead of admitting that they knowingly invested in a fraud scheme...like all the other fraud schemes they knowingly invested in.

They gave him 25 years for making powerful people look stupid. At the same time they were sentencing him to 25 years for stealing money from his financial backers, CZ of Binance had admitted to deliberately laundering money for drug cartels and he was only sentenced to 4 months. CZ helped weapons dealers and human traffickers. Got 4 months. AND THEN GOT A FULL PARDON.

I believe that there's a constitutional argument that SBF's sentence is cruel and unusual in a world where CZ gets 4 months.

Duh. His products have no viable use-case. Coinbase was a money laundering platform that has been publicly cooperating with the feds against their own customers. Coinbase, and crypto in general, was a regulatory arbitrage and those are always meant to be temporary. Once regulations make the arb impossible, the platform and the losers running immediately cease to have any value.

More self-promotion from this grifter. The internet's problem isn't "shit" it's "spam" and grifters like Corey are a part of the problem. This guy is filling the internet with marketing-spam and claiming he' raising awareness of the problem he's actively creating.

No one believes that this metric has any connection to the reality. As a user of both platforms, it's obvious that Twitter clearly has a much larger, active user-base than threads. If the metrics are telling us something different then they're fake.

What we're actually seeing is that Twitter has become pay2win so online marketers can't just start a swarm of accounts to manipulate the conversation, they actually have to pay for twitter premium on all those accounts or no one will see their posts. This makes that particular style of marketing too expensive to be a useful product.

The cost of running a fake account on threads is less than the cost of running a fake account on Twitter, so marketing companies are standing down one set of bots on Twitter in favor of standing up a cheaper set of bots on Threads.

Seriously. The platform is a complete trainwreck. Go look at the youtube account for their marketing show, Diggnation. They have no meaningful engagement. Every single comment is 3 emojis or two words. None of the comments include any questions or discussions, or any other form of organic behavior, because no one is actually watching. I watched one episode and immediately blocked the account because it was completely unwatchable.

And that kinda sucks. I used to play WoW with the cohost and was an original Digg user and in the private beta of the new one. It's all awful. It's everything with the internet.

BTW I'd love to ask you to never use that weird term again. You used a marketing term created by a tech-grifter. The internet doesn't have a shit problem, it has a marketing problem. And the guy who coined that term is using it to promote his books. He is actively making the internet worse and by renaming the issue, he's making it harder for us to solve it. Spam is destroying the internet and Corey Doctorow is just another spammer. He's a muckfaker. He pretends to by raising awareness of corruption and fraud while actually promoting the interests of those very same corrupt fraudsters.

Cool but it's already filled with marketing slop and bullshit AI features that no one wants. And every major sub is already dominated by power users posting the exact same generic bullshit that they saw on Reddit yesterday. There is absolutely no way for this website to gain traction with anyone except marketing grifters.

Platform decay has accelerated so much that Digg had already started decomposing during the closed beta. It has absolutely nothing to offer a user base. The game theory is all wrong and the only possible way for them to create the metrics they need to make this platform profitable is to fill it with fake accounts.

6 months from now it'll either be dead or entirely filled with bots.

This is just a shallow form of marketing designed to push the "always on and always connected" model of consumer technology that reduces privacy, cyber-security and consumer rights. This is gross and it has nothing to with art. Yuck.

Ya'll are having a weird meta-conversation about semantics but you're not actually bothering too define the word. The word "invasion" implies "boots on the ground" as opposed too an "act of war" via missiles, drones or bombers.

Coo, but that distinction doesn't actually matter because we DID put boots on the ground. A very small group of American soldiers absolutely invaded Venezuela. There is no definition of the word "invasion" that wouldn't apply to the recent military action. Polymarket didn't say "massive invasion" or provide a troop count necessary to qualify. A small invasion is an invasion. We invaded Venezuela and none of the semantic non-sense even applies.

As usual, Wired is producing advertainment instead of journalism. Real things happening in the real world and Wired has decided to take this opportunity to promote the use of chatbots made by their sponsors.

Talking to 2 chatbots and then describing your conversation is not journalism. Wired destroyed it's print magazine with native-advertising and now it's doing the same thing to every social media platform in the world.

They don't mean "dramatically", they mean exponentially.

Who do you think is buying weapons of mass destruction from Iran? I don't think you actually read the article...or even the headline.

I dunno, man. If I was buying drugs I'd probably want to use a currency that doesn't create a permanent digital footprint of the transaction.

Crypto as a means of evading detection simply doesn't work. Iran doesn't have to try to evade detection, just control. Drug dealers and buyers need to evade detection and therefore can't really use crypto at scale. Ya'll can say what you want about how popular it is, but I point to hundreds, if not thousands, of indictments based on crypto receipts.

If you want to say that drug dealing WAS the use-case at scale 5-10 years ago, that's probably true but since they've cracked all the platforms and mixers. it just ain't happening like it used to.

I think you're describing the historical context for crypto but it doesn't really apply to modern usage.

I'll admit it. I was wrong. For the past decade my mantra has been "crypto has no use-case at scale". Well, I guess they found one. Selling weapons to dictators is a pretty big market. Congratulations crypto bros, you finally have a use-case and all it took was financing global terrorism.