[josephcsible]

First they came for the crypto crap, and I did not speak out ... Then they came for me.

And with email, the recipient can choose to override the spam filter. That's key, and is the reason that spam filters aren't censorship.

[Pulcinella]

First they came for the spam emails, and I did not speak out because I was not a spammer.

Then they came for the crypto crap, and I did not speak out because I didn’t want that crap.

Then they came for the NFTs, and I did not speak out because I was not an NFT bro.

Then they came for the weekly trash pickup, and I said thank you.

[Spivak]

People really like to use the slippery slope argument to mean "I took the most expansive interpretation of what someone did throwing away all context and came up with the worst possible thing they could do with that."

[evandale]

That's because if a bad actor was given the opportunity to make a lot of money doing the worst possible thing they could do with something someone will do that thing eventually 100% of the time, no exceptions. This isn't even an "Only siths deal in absolutes" scenario either.

There are plenty of people in the world who will do anything in this world for money, power, wealth, and control over people and they don't care who they hurt in the process of achieving that goal.

[vkou]

And? A bad actor that has power by fiat over you doesn't need a slippery slope to do bad things, they can just go and do them.

Case in point - Reddit's enshittification. Spez has decided that Reddit will now be a walled garden, and all you can do is take it or leave it.

Slippery slope arguments provide exactly zero guidance for as to when it is reasonable to stop going down the slope, which is what makes them utterly useless.

[evandale]

I replied to this comment and I'm sufficiently happy with my explanation. What's disagreeable about my statement in the context of answering the parent's question?

> People really like to use the slippery slope argument to mean "I took the most expansive interpretation of what someone did throwing away all context and came up with the worst possible thing they could do with that."

[scrps]

The point where you don't go down the slope is when you recognize it and you don't know what is at the end of it's long tail. The guidance is built in.

[vkou]

"We can't have police, this will lead to a slippery slope that will lead to a 1984 police state."

"We can't not have police, this will lead to a slippery slope that will lead to Mad Max anarchy and roaming bands of killers and warlords riding in really awesome-looking semis."

That's the entire problem with the slippery slope! Two entirely conflicting, equally compelling arguments can be construed with it, starting from the same simple question - "Should there be police? Yes/No?"

Just because the bottom of a slippery slope looks awful, or can't be seen isn't a reason to do, or not do something - because I can construct a million awful slippery slopes for any action you do, or not do.

A slippery slope argument eliminates all nuance from a question, and provides no guidance for answering it well. That's exactly what makes it a logical fallacy.

[mort96]

There's a thing some people seem to be unable to understand, and it's that... coming after bad things can be good, actually.

The thing about the "first they came" poem is that attacking the socialists, trade unionists and jews is already bad. There's a reason it doesn't start with "first they came for the murderers, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a murderer".

The poem urges us to stand up against injustice even if it doesn't affect us directly. The poem doesn't argue that all slopes are slippery.

[PretzelPirate]

> There's a thing some people seem to be unable to understand, and it's that... coming after bad things can be good, actually.

Going after bad things can be good, but going after a developer who wants to be tipped in crypto isn't a bad thing. Apple being able to take down an app because it allows the user to monetarily reward a developer in the way the dev chooses *is* a bad thing.

[joshstrange]

> allows the user to monetarily reward a developer in the way the dev chooses is a bad thing

I honestly don't believe anyone can argue this in good faith. First off it's not user->developer but user->user and second "the way the dev [or user] chooses" is just silly. At the end of the day people want fiat currencies, Bitcoin (or any other crypto) in this case is clearly meant as a way to bypass the app store cut. It's not because "they really wanted bitcoin", no, they wanted a loophole. We can argue about if Apple/Google deserve 30% but pretending people actually want crypto for any reason other than avoid rules/regulations is silly.

[evandale]

> We can argue about if Apple/Google deserve 30% but pretending people actually want crypto for any reason other than avoid rules/regulations is silly.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36405348

> I have a PornHub subscription that uses bitcoin. There's nothing speculative about it and it's completely legitimate. I've also used to to purchase indie games instead of giving Steam/Google/Apple/Epic a cut. I'm looking for a Spotify alternative and this seems to fit the bill and I'd give OP some bitcoin to check it out.

> Just because viable usecases don't exist today isn't proof that they'll never exist and isn't a reason to stop development. If we gave up on hard problems because we didn't solve them in 15 years we wouldn't have the AI we have today.

Can you please explain to me how my use of crypto is avoiding rules/regulations? I don't wish to be silly or have pretend intentions.

Is there a rule that says all developers have to put their games on Steam or Epic and accept local currency that I'm trying to avoid? Is there a rule that says developers can't sell their games for apples? What rules/regulations would a developer avoid by accepting apples as payment for their work?

Now extend this to people who are creating videos and want to create their an iOS app that will allow them to accept apples as payment. What makes crypto special?

Apple's 30% cut is not a real rule, I'm sorry. It doesn't bring any good in the world and it doesn't help anybody except Apple. Apple and Apple's supporters care about the rule but that doesn't make it a valid rule or something the rest of us have to sit back and accept. Using crypto to avoid Apple's fees isn't hurting anybody except the poor old multi-trillion dollar company named Apple. If you want to talk about people pretending let's talk about how many people pretend like Apple is a good guy or how people pretend like Apple cares about them on an individual level. It's as delusional as walking into a strip club and walking out thinking the stripper you paid $300 for a lap dance for loves you and wants to see you again because they care about you on an individual level.

It's also fully within someone's rights to put their foot down and fight Apple on this. There's nothing wrong with that and the US legal system allows for it. You can be a bully and tell people to pick up their ball and go somewhere else when they're in "your park" but one day someone is gonna punch you in the mouth and tell you to sod off when they see you let everyone else play there with different rules. Apple is going to lose their 30% cut in the very near future, they know it, and they're terrified.

[mort96]

If you wanna argue that going after cryptocurrency is a bad thing, make that argument. Don't just use the poem to make a lazy slippery slope argument.

And apparently, this isn't even about cryptocurrency but Apple's normal 30% tax. If that's true, then it means that the lazy slippery slope argument is even less applicable.

[wellthisisgreat]

Nobody speaks out for crypto crap because everyone not in the crap swindling business wants it gone in its current shape.

It has nothing to do with free speech or anything, it’s a wart

[schlick]

It's absolutely wild to me to see someone take a poem about the genocide of millions of people and apply it to an app being banned from a digital store over cryptocurrency tipping.