But many people use Google Search, Maps, Mail, Analytics... And of course the endless tentacles of Adsense, Adwords, Recaptcha, Doubleclick.
In my opinion the reach of Google, and therefore their ability to cause harm, is even greater than Facebook's, and beyond the veneer of perceived benevolence they are just as unethical.
The reason Google isn't getting much backlash is because they played their cards right. They're much more discreet, their ads look like any other ad except for the tiny adsense symbol, they give the appearance of a free, open search engine etc etc. How many people know that the search suggestions don't really reflect the most popular terms? How many know that Google will go through your emails to pick up information about you? How many know that they actively derank websites, essentially deleting them off the internet, based on political choices?
It's also quite possible that people aren't aware of critisism against Google simply because Google chooses to hide it. They're that powerful right now.
That's a false equivalence. Fiat currencies are used FOR Ponzi schemes of course. But they are not THE ponzi scheme.
The question is, do you believe in the inherent usefulness of a specific crypto? If the only way to make money from a crypto is predicated on other people putting more money in it later on, that's the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
You don't hold onto euros and dollars because you think you can sell them later on for more money. That's why central banks have inflation targets: so that you're incentivized to use currencies as an exchange instrument, not as a store of value.
> That's why central banks have inflation targets: so that you're incentivized to use currencies as an exchange instrument, not as a store of value.
A bit off-topic, but why is that a good thing? Why is it better for currency to lose its value over time? I'd imagine this leads to people mindlessly buying more and more stuff, to use up that money before it loses its value.
On the other hand, if value of currency would increase over time, then people would have to spend it only on whatever they actually really need or desire. Is that bad?
> I'd imagine this leads to people mindlessly buying more and more stuff, to use up that money before it loses its value.
They don't spend it mindlessly, they still allocate it relative to other opportunities. Low but positive inflation makes a lot of investments relatively more attractive, therefore incentivizing people to invest in economic activities, instead of sitting on their cash. Deflation creates a dearth of resource available to invest.
Plus it's a redistribution mechanism. If all you have to do is to sit on your cash for it to grow, then it's a rich becomes richer system. If you have to invest that money, there's an uncertainty, a risk, and opportunity for people to multiply their starting capital.
Some early bitcoins buyers are saying exactly that: "I got in early, I'm set up for life, if you didn't get early enough too bad you're gonna stay poor". It's not really how we'd like an economy to function.
> [...] people would have to spend it only on whatever they actually really need or desire. Is that bad?
It's bad if you want a growing economy. And usually technical innovation comes from relatively niche investments that no one really needs right now.
If someone did call Euros a joke because of a Euro ponzi scheme, would anyone who has Euros in their bank give the slightest shit, never mind write an article about how the Euro is being "slandered"?
I recognize how my previous comment read, so I will try to explain myself better.
I have never owned any amount of a crypto, neither did I waste more than a few watt-minutes running a mining algo.
I would actually be on the other end of the stereotype, "the bitter bitcon hater that has known about it since the early days (mainly from HN) but never invested a cent in it" but alas I do not fit there either.
I am a neutral observer, interested in debate about novel forms of currency rather than any single implementation. The initial point I was trying to make is that I find the argument about ICOs (the vast majority of witch are obvious scams) detracts from the actual technology. The way the trading markets are acting does not help either.
Ah, sorry if that came across as directed at you specifically. It was more just about the 'cultishness' around Bitcoin that I think marks it out as somewhat different to regular currencies.
there's always a limit to "morally right" "education".
the other side is using their own 'shady' media channels ('youtube influencers') to advertise their shady product.
So your logic is that because scammers use dishonest tactics to market their scams, it should be OK for the Polish central bank to use the same shady, dishonest tactics? The whole reason scammers are willing to use those tactics is because they're swindling people. It's one of the signs they're up to no good. If they're going to act like scammers, maybe we should treat them like scammers.
By far, the most damaging malicious media influence has been done by the state. People over-investing on crypto is a petty squabble to the misdemeanors of the institution that controls the entire money supply of the country
sorry.