I'm Calling BS on MSM

Sometimes when you read something published online under a credible news masthead you just have to call BS.

I had just such a moment reading the Jack the Insider blog on The Australian website.

Here's what he wrote that is so wrong.

The first thing to say about cryptocurrencies generally is that if they were prohibited or at least regulated like normal currency transactions, crimes like ransomware attacks would not occur.

That's an ignorant and frankly stupid statement.

Is the author suggesting that ransom has never been demanded (or paid) prior to the invention of crypto-currency?

I hate to break it to him but it happens all the time and has since time immemorial.

So too has corporate fraud, cyber attacks, phishing scams and all manner of other electronic and non-electronic means of parting someone from their money using illegal means.

Often that involves untraceable cash or even regulated currency transfers.

Just because some regulated channel is used doesn't mean criminal conduct doesn't occur - or that the funds are actually retrievable.

When the Bangladesh central bank had funds stolen using the global SWIFT network, they only recovered a fraction of the $81 million taken.

Clearly Jack the Insider isn't much of a researcher or knows very little about crypto-currency. But he then goes on to demonstrate even more ignorance.

There is a moral element to cryptocurrencies. People who invest in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple or Litecoin or one of the numerous other cryptocurrencies available, must do so knowing that the backbone of cryptocurrencies is organised crime.

There is no moral element to any currency - crypto or otherwise. There is only a moral element to what people do with any medium of exchange.

Using Jack's questionable logic, there is a moral element to cash too because that is the most widely used medium of exchange for criminal transactions.

Does that mean we should abolish cash?

The short-term thinker or big government type would answer yes to that question. They see only the benefits and not the risks attached to such an approach.

Cancelling cash payments would effectively remove the last vestige of privacy available to us all.

The treasure trove of information on our spending habits would undoubtedly be used against us. Our consumption habits would inform our eligibility or pricing for everything from health care to life insurance to loan applications.

It would be like having China's dehumanising social credit system on steroids.

And while we are at it, why not ban the other hallmarks of criminal enterprises too. Most Outlaw motorcycle gang members have a Harley Davidson. Are they in Jack's sites too?

Criminals use knives and guns. Should we ban them too. But what does that mean for the butchers, the chefs and the farmers; not to mention the hobbyists?

Continuing with the moral argument. I note the wokists favourite son, Elon Musk put billions into Bitcoin. So has Paypal, Square, Microstrategy, JP Morgan, Greyscale, Goldman Sachs and a plethora of other financial institutions.

Others like Starbucks take crypto-currency payments and pay their taxes on those earnings.

While not all of them are exemplary corporate citizens are they morally supporting criminal behaviour too?

Statements of opinion that masquerade as facts is almost everything that is wrong with the mainstream media today.

Today, Jack the Insider has given us another example.