Randosaurus

oh god, did I use the word shit in a sentence... I also used vagina, those bodily functions shouldn't be used in good company!

Oh how dare I, my days of making points are certainly coming to a middle...

The flat UI's you're complaining about are an example of the form over function philosophy.

Since you've chosen to go with a false equivalency using an apples-to-oranges comparison, lets rewrite that

"If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period"

People shot guns while hunting all the time, therefore the actions of Cheney that led up to him shooting his friend are both acceptable, things we should continue doing, and should under no circumstances be expected to change in future hunts.

^ Because you see ... it doesn't matter that other people have successfully gone hunting and shot guns in the past, what matters are the specific circumstances that led to Cheney shooting another human being.

---

What happens is that people like you want to point to the firing of the gun and argue that firing guns is legal therefore Cheney did nothing wrong.

Everyone understand the flaw in that logic, I don't even have to explain it.

---

FB did nothing wrong everyone! FB is just displaying text on a webpage, something people do all the time!

People often get things backwards.

If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period. What people get backwards is thinking that if the actions that led up to the razing were themselves not ethically problematic, then the result has no bearing on whether or not we should continue allowing said actions.

Then there's the fact that actual FB employee's have gone on record that FB is making things worse in Ethiopia. Or aren't we allowed to take that into account when condemning FB?

Discounting this as being simply "he said/she said" is itself ethically dubious.

It's a valid question to ask.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that a company with the resources of Facebook are quicker to pull down a post by a practicing medical doctor stating masks aren't 100% effective than they are to pull down a post inciting violence in a country that has been in the middle of such violence for the last 3 years?

The problem with opinions like yours isn't that they're wrong, it's that you've lost all perspective.

This is akin to disallowing sugar completely because too much sugar causes people to become unhealthy.

The issue here isn't the action, it's the scale at which this action is able to occur.

Most places have stopped asking me to sign when I make a purchase less than $X with my debit card (Generally around $25). Their thought process is that it's much faster cycling people through and the risk of money loss isn't worth the loss in throughput.

What you quoted is specifically for less than 200 transactions in a calendar year. The implication being that any account involving 200 or more transactions in a calendar year will need that information.

Which brings about two points.

1. Exactly how much money can someone launder buying < 200 csgo skins in a calendar year (are we arguing that they're paying $50k per skin?), and 2. How exactly does the idea that they've decided to take on some risk to decrease friction incompatible with not wanting to deal with NFT's, which *COULD* conceivably go for $50k a pop.

The person you're responding to already addressed that point, why are you reiterating it?

People send a certain Nigerian Prince money because they want to, and yet ...