> Either they can't because of shareholder/equity owners pressure, or they won't, because they really don't care and just said it for PR
That is assuming the worst in people. Have you ever wanted to move onto something new? If you make something cool, it is not your lifelong obligation to oversee it.
I don't know why, but after being a professional programmer for around 20 years, I have replaced all my hobby programming with woodworking. I love it. There's something about having a tangible object you can touch when you're done that makes it satisfying for me.
They are not categorized as a publisher. They receive legal protections as such. This will quickly evolve into a section 230 debate.
I do agree social media companies should be categorized as a publisher - or content providers, but they are not. I think changing section 230 would solve a lot of problems by removing very specific legal protections, which news companies do not receive, and help prevent clear issues such as knowingly promoting false information.
There are those that disagree with me. Problems exist with any solution such as who should judge what should not be allowed and would the counter devolve into an organization that could control information dissemination? A valid point. I think the answer is already out there - a very low standard (or to say another way the high burden of proof required) current news organizations are held to by law, which most seem not to debate is too restrictive, or some line between nothing and that.
There is a lot of academic discourse on this topic and I recommend researching 230 more. It’s a fascinating policy debate with pros and cons on both sides. It was written in 1996, the year the palm pilot and the Pentium 166MHz processor was introduced.
The actual statement portion after all the understandings
> THE DEFENDANT: From approximately March 2018 through November 2022, I worked at Alameda Research, a cryptocurrency trading firm principally owned by Sam Bankman-Fried. At Alameda Research, I first worked as a cryptocurrency trade and was later appointed by Mr. Bankman-Fried as the co-CEO and
eventually CEO of Alameda Research Ltd., the subsidiary that
housed the firm's main trading and market making operations.
In those roles, I reported to Mr. Bankman-Fried.
From 2019 through 2022, I was aware that Alameda was
provided access to a borrowing facility on FTX.com, the
cryptocurrency exchange run by Mr. Bankman-Fried. I understood
that FTX executives had implemented special settings on
Alameda's FTX.com account that permitted Alameda to maintain
negative balances in various fiat currencies and crypto
currencies. In practical terms, this arrangement permitted
Alameda access to an unlimited line of credit without being
required to post collateral, without having to pay interest on
negative balances and without being subject to margin calls or
FTX.com's liquidation protocols. I understood that if
Alameda's FTX accounts had significant negative balances in any
particular currency, it meant that Alameda was borrowing funds
that FTX's customers had deposited onto the exchange.
While I was co-CEO and then CEO, I understood that
Alameda had made numerous large illiquid venture investments
and had lent money to Mr. Bankman-Fried and other FTX
executives. I also understood that Alameda had financed these
investments with short-term and open-term loans worth several
billion dollars from external lenders in the cryptocurrency
industry. When many of those loans were recalled by
lenders in and around June 2022, I agreed with others to borrow
several billion dollars from FTX to repay those loans. I
understood that FTX would need to use customer funds to finance
its loans to Alameda. I also understood that many FTX
customers invested in crypto derivatives and that most FTX
customers did not expect that FTX would lend out their digital
asset holdings and fiat currency deposits to Alameda in this
fashion.
From in and around July 2022 through at least
October 2022, I agreed with Mr. Bankman-Fried and others to
provide materially misleading financial statements to Alameda's
lenders. In furtherance of this agreement, for example, we
prepared certain quarterly balance sheets that concealed the
extent of Alameda's borrowing and the billions of dollars in
loans that Alameda had made to FTX executives and to related
parties. I also understood that FTX had not disclosed to FTX's
equity investors that Alameda could borrow a potentially
unlimited amount from FTX, thereby putting customer assets at
risk. I agreed with Mr. Bankman-Fried and others not to
publicly disclose the true nature of the relationship between
Alameda and FTX, including Alameda's credit arrangement.
I also understood that Mr. Bankman-Fried and others
funded certain investments in amounts more than $10,000 with
customer funds that FTX had lent to Alameda. The investments
were done in the name of Alameda instead of FTX in order to
conceal the source and nature of those funds.
I am truly sorry for what I did. I knew that it was
wrong. And I want to apologize for my actions to the affected
customers of FTX, lenders to Alameda and investors in FTX.
Since FTX and Alameda collapsed in November 2022, I have worked
hard to assist with the recovery of assets for the benefit of
customers and to cooperate with the government's investigation.
I am here today to accept responsibility for my actions by
pleading guilty.
We also have policy problems. As previous commenters with experience in the industry point out, this problem is easy to solve. It’s not a technical problem, it’s a policy problem.
It’s not an ideals problem. Even very conservative economists would agree that there exists a negative externality in the transaction between the call center and the telecom company on the person being called where there should be some cost on the transaction to account for that externality.
So, it’s not even a conservative liberal thing (intentionally not using party names as those names may not reflect conservative or liberal ideals). It’s a policy problem. Write your member of congress.
Anyone claiming “deregulation” for the names sake is speaking rhetoric without knowledge. Both conservative and liberal economists agree with regulation. The most conservative of economists understand the concept of externalities. Call centers bear a clear externality. The business transaction between the telecom
Company and the caller bears a negative externality on the callee who is not a member of that transaction. Conservative economists would also agree with regulation to at least impose a cost on the transaction to reflect that externality. The problem is with policy and lobbying as you stated - write your member of congress.
To comment on a now deleted post to this comment: I’m not arguing that bad regulation doesn’t exist which can perpetuate and help continue market failures. I’m arguing that good regulation is the fix to known market failures and economists on both sides recognize that.
> The most conservative of economists understand the concept of externalities.
Even conservative economists (and for that matter, also other experts) usually aren't dumb, but I've never seen one of them act on their knowledge appropriately. They all prioritize their ideology and their donors, some of them even refuse to listen to science and facts when people die by the masses.
You are confusing economists with politicians. I can point you to many conservative economists who recommend good policy - whether or not that is implemented is a different story. Economists are advisors, not decision makers, in this context.
News and anecdotal data are terrible sources. Point him to well-researched articles that do their best to show causation. But please don't just claim that extreme flooding must be caused by global warming without any evidence of causation when there are many variables in our world.
I did a data science project to show that the earth was warming (no cause implied) to counteract arguments that it wasn't. There is good research out there - use it.
I feel like most counter arguments generally fall into the category of X is okay because Y is worse. I find myself more and more stating that the two points are not mutually exclusive and that they can overlap. Both can be bad.
I make this point while recognizing that I agree national security has acceptable carbon footprint costs, while at the same time not liking arguments in support of that cost based not the premise that other policies are worse.
Even the world leaders need to meet in person. When you have people with that level of impact on policy - virtual meetings just do not have the same effect. They need to meet in person, talk, have side-bars, read body-language, get a drink together, do human things while solving human problems.
That is assuming the worst in people. Have you ever wanted to move onto something new? If you make something cool, it is not your lifelong obligation to oversee it.