[wpietri]

Isn't "extrajurisdictional company" a contradiction in terms? A company is a legal vehicle, which requires laws, which requires jurisdiction.

Without a legal company, it would seem that under the law you are just some individuals conducting business. Is that not the case?

[dragonwriter]

> A company is a legal vehicle

No, a company is any business organization. Corporations, partnerships, LLCs, etc., are particular legal vehicles, each of which is a kind of company. But a company need not have a particular legal vehicle.

[wpietri]

Do you have a reference for that? I have never heard of a company that wasn't some specific legal vehicle. Wikipedia defines it specifically as a legal entity. It's not clear to me what a "business organization" means if it's not defined under law, in that it would otherwise seem to be a bunch of individuals coordinating their activities, not a formal entity in its own right.

[dragonwriter]

> Do you have a reference for that?

Google's dictionary in search defines it as “a commercial business”, dictionary.com defines it as “a number of persons united or incorporated for joint action, especially for business”;

Wiktionary has both a business definition “Any business, whether incorporated or not, that manufactures or sells products (also known as goods), or provides services as a commercial venture” and a law definition “An entity having legal personality, and thus able to own property and to sue and be sued in its own name; a corporation.”

FindLaw’s law dictionary gives “an association of persons for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise”

> It's not clear to me what a "business organization" means if it's not defined under law

It's a vague, broad category; the law mostly concerns itself with more specific categories.

[wpietri]

I agree what you're saying could be seen to fit inside some formal definition, although I'd see that as more a lacuna in a definition than proof.

Do you have examples of things that are talked about as companies that are not also legal entities? I have been reading the business press for decades, and I don't recall ever seeing it.

[dragonwriter]

> Do you have examples of things that are talked about as companies that are not also legal entities?

Sole proprietorships are not legal entity. (Their owner is a “legal entity”, but the business itself is not separately.)

Partnerships were not generally legal entities in the US prior to states adopting 1997 revisions to the Uniform Partnership Act model law (only 37 of 49 states who adopted the original law, apparently, have adopted the 1997 revision); I'm not sure if any of the states that don't use the 1997 RUPA still don't make partnerships legal entities.

[wpietri]

Ok. When I mean examples, I mean specific examples. Do you have, e.g., examples of a sole proprietorship being discussed as a company?

[the_stc]

A company is a group of people operating together. That is what our company is. We are not incorporated in any jurisdiction.

[fragsworth]

Unless you and the people in your "company" can pay for your food, rent, and bills directly with Bitcoin or Ethereum, I don't see how this works. You have to convert it to fiat somewhere, and that's probably going to be through a bank. Then you're in for a lot of trouble if you get investigated, audited, or whatever.

[the_stc]

>Then you're in for a lot of trouble if you get investigated, audited, or whatever

Yes that is accurate. This endeavor relies on me getting our opsec right.

[michaelchisari]

That is perilously naive.

[the_stc]

How so? I am aware that if our opsec fails, a creative prosecutor will have no shortage of options to go after me with.

It won't shut down the operation because a successor will restore from backups and move on. But it will make me unhappy.

[scallycat]

So who would be liable in the case of somebody suing you? If the company has no legal existence, then would the individuals involved be liable, and without the protections of limited liability?

[the_stc]

They would need to break our opsec, at which point a civil suit is the least of my concerns.

[jhwang5]

So your team members all work remotely in different countries?

[asntbqjkwbuca]

The correct phrase would be "organized crime" or "criminal conspiracy". They're a prostitution/human trafficking startup billing themselves as the solution to human trafficking.

[the_stc]

We facilitate sex work, yes. We do not support trafficking, we verify IDs first, and we will use pattern recognition to detect trafficking/pimps and ban them from our platform. This is not perfect, but it is a great improvement from where things are today: Backpage actively fighting to keep underage listings on their site!

We are very much open to hearing of suggestions on how to improve things. Let us know: [e-mail].

[wpietri]

This is such a great/terrible example of the absolute arrogance in the tech industry. I really do try to defend tech in general, but then something like this comes along.

Your claim is that you can enter into an industry literally thousands of years old and use a little algorithmic magic to prevent sex trafficking where the world's collective police departments have consistently failed. And it's all done by an anonymous bunch of dudes. Pretending that they have an "extrajurisdictional company". Which, yes, is a criminal conspiracy. Except conducted on the web, and funded by an illegal securities sale.

It of course brings to mind this classic bit from the Wire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBdGOrcUEg8

[the_stc]

Do not change my words.

I am not pretending algorithmic magic will prevent sex trafficking. I am saying that, to the best of our abilities, we will ban it from our platform. At least for underage trafficking, by checking IDs we are already far better than classifieds.

So we will do our part to fight against and not enable trafficking. We are not a free-for-all marketplace.

That is the extent of my claims!

Police are ineffective because they do not control the marketplace, unlike us. If governments wanted to shut down trafficking they have the option to legalize and regulate. That would harm illegal operations.

[wpietri]

Oh, so "pattern recognition" means you will... look at things? Gosh, how impressive. I'm sure that will get you really far when dealing with career criminals, as they have never really tried deceiving anybody before.

More accurately, you will do your part to fight trafficking as long as it doesn't get too much in the way of making money for yourselves and your investors. That is, people looking to profit off prostitution.

For the record, I'm entirely in favor of legalization and regulation. Which is why I think an international criminal conspiracy with a high-tech gloss is an absolutely terrible idea.