eric_cc

When you willingly take financial action with a smart contract, you are agreeing to the smart contract. The smart contract is code. While code is not “law” literally, in this case it is the lawful contract definition. How else can you possibly interpret this?

A lot of us are afraid to post on Twitter because of the woke crowd and cancel culture.

No fucking shit. Twitter needs leadership that won't censor.

Blue Sky

> Those are the rules of using the platform.

.. that only get enforced on accounts that are political opponents of Twitter's agenda.

> a free-speech absolutist

You don't need to be an absolutist to be pretty disgusted with Twitter censorship.

> Most people do not use Twitter at all.

Read-only is still using it.

> It's not a "speech" platform for the masses as no actual speech happens by the masses themselves.

The masses are willingly choosing to use the app in this way. If anything, many people are afraid to post because of cancel culture.

> It's not surprising that the masses don't post. You can't express yourself on Twitter due to the character limit

Contrary to what you might think, you don’t need long-form text to express yourself. Most people don’t care enough about you and prefer a TL/DR

> the culture is terrible.

This depends on how you use the app.

> I think Twitter has a far bigger problem than a free speech problem.

Of course you do.

Breaking out the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" for daylight savings time?

I think this is a very dramatic hypothesis you've presented here. If an individual or family is inconvenienced by this, adapt!

Places that already do not change for DST are doing just fine. e.g. Arizona

> Is it hard to determine the difference between The National Enquirer and Nature?

Try Fox News vs New York Times.

> It's ultimately nuanced, but it's not rocket science. The challenge is not really with institutions, there are not that many of them, but rather with social media, individuals, commenters, state actors posing as 'regular people' etc..

Scoring how much you trust an entity to determine the truthfulness of information they are generating is flawed.

In no way does this properly verify information’s truthfulness in and of itself.

Even scoring “Information.Source.Trust Score”, which is just a single aspect of information, is still far more difficult to do than you apparently realize. How can a human build such a score with no bias?

Cool but who determines trust scores?

> excluding literal disinformation

Who decides what is literal disinformation?

> If the search engine returns lies it's completely failed.

How does a search engine know what is true?

> So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display?

They do have the right to participate in censorship. I don’t see anybody suggesting otherwise. Now we know that they can no longer be trusted to serve unbiased information. And now we can tag your account as “pro censorship”.

While you’re waffling

> If you were a search engine provider and knew that viral, fake stories

How does the search engine company know whether something is true or not?

dude just stop. Idiots on the left. Idiots on the right. Stop being a tool.. because honestly, only a brainwashed tool would truly believe the problem only exists with The OTHER group.

This is bullshit. Most American news (left and right) is Entertainment and in that sense it IS actually quite fake. And that's to say nothing of the times MSM is outright lying. Trump calling out the fake news as fake was probably one of the best things he did with his time as president. At least some people woke up as a result. Before Trump, people would view publications like NYT and WaPo as fundamentally different than Fox News. Now, thankfully, many more people realize they are exactly the same. If anything, Fox News presents itself more honestly as news entertainment and NYT is more deceptive.

> Not accepting cash is a method of discrimination

Then you should fight the good fight of making cash great again! :P

> lockouts

Source?

Source?

Conveniently ignoring lightning payments.

> Without monetary policy

You are the enemy.

> just pass the necessary laws to fix the amount of money at the current level

Go ahead and pass the law. I'll wait.

It'll never happen. But let's say for the sake of argument it did. Another law could come along to change it again. Why trust laws and corrupt government officials? They are unnecessary soon-to-be antiquated relics of days when no better option existed.

There seems to be a lot of a unhealthy bitter jealousy on HN toward cryptocurrency. And I believe you've nailed the reason why.

> this huge portion goes straight from REGULAR MAIL to using a convoluted highly technical EMAIL

> The problem is the utopia you are envisioning only happens if the whole world is moulded into either one government or no government at all.

Now you're thinking! And you're starting to see why crypto is a much bigger deal that it first seems.

There are so many "Oh shit, if this then that" moments as you figure out where we're likely headed.

> actual currency

What is actual currency and why does it have value? And do you feel "actual currency" is perfect as-is with no room for any improvement?

As long as we have fiat, bitcoin WILL always increase in value. Because bitcoin supply is capped and fiat will continue to lose buying power year after year. At this stage, there is no incentive to hold fiat and huge incentive to hold as much bitcoin as possible.

If bitcoin replaces fiat, bitcoin becomes the main representation of value. It no longer goes up against a trading pair of fiat. I speculate that its buying power would stabilize and become fairly static.

I opened with:

> Let’s assume BTC replaces fiat (USD)

If BTC replaces fiat, I don't believe it would increase in buying power at a rapid rate. I think it would gradually increase in buying power over time only because the total supply will gradually shrink due to lost coins / dust /etc.

I like the spirit of what you're saying here. It touches on why I think crypto/decentralized systems could have a domino effect that disrupts how people organize and govern. You like space and would be able to "vote" for it directly.

> It’s very telling that you’re ignoring half of my questions in every response.

I've enjoyed this thread but I can only provide it so much time and effort. Hopefully, you will find other sources to help answer your questions.

> Who is forcing them to transition? Is it the government? Why did the government change currencies to crypto, without aiding their citizens?

Free markets & will-toward-freedom forces the change. In theory, governments could accumulate crypto now and airdrop it to citizens later.

> Again, you’ve ignored my question about supply and how to sustainably on-ramp the entire world populace into crypto.

There is no such God-like control over this transition. I've clearly stated that I don't believe it will be pretty and equitable. It will be messy and chaotic.