How did I make a false equivalency when the op literally called any project that "dabbles in crypto" a possible scam? That includes Signal as well as Mullvad. Op's comment does not in any way indicate the use of one's own currency, simply abolishing all services using crypto.
Don't you recognise a difference between creating a cryptocurrency to use it to encourage people to watch ads, and allowing people to pay with for a service with an existing cryptocurrency in the cause of anonymity? There's a fundamental difference, right? If not, then fair enough - them taking exception to Brave but supporting Mullvad is hypocracy in your eyes.
FWIW, I believe no defender of !privacy should be opposed to cryptocurrencies; for better or worse, they're the only option for online anonymous payments. But I also object to the proliferation of bespoke shitcoins, most of which are truly pyramid schemes in intention amd execution. But it's a fine line, I'll admit.
Of course I recognize the idfference. And I hate brave for somewhat abusing their users like they do. Still, that is not what op said. I won't repeat it again, but that fundamental difference you are speaking of was not highlighted by them. Possibly leading other people to believe that cryptocurrency is bad to use as a whole, which as yourself has said is not right if one repsects privacy.
I didn't; that was someone else. But you did make the false equivalency.
I'm not anti-crypto myself, incidentally..
And of course, my mistake. Didn't mean to falsely accuse you.
No problem. All social media apps on mobile have this issue of obscuring the chain. It's the nature of the beast.
How did I make a false equivalency when the op literally called any project that "dabbles in crypto" a possible scam? That includes Signal as well as Mullvad. Op's comment does not in any way indicate the use of one's own currency, simply abolishing all services using crypto.
Don't you recognise a difference between creating a cryptocurrency to use it to encourage people to watch ads, and allowing people to pay with for a service with an existing cryptocurrency in the cause of anonymity? There's a fundamental difference, right? If not, then fair enough - them taking exception to Brave but supporting Mullvad is hypocracy in your eyes.
FWIW, I believe no defender of !privacy should be opposed to cryptocurrencies; for better or worse, they're the only option for online anonymous payments. But I also object to the proliferation of bespoke shitcoins, most of which are truly pyramid schemes in intention amd execution. But it's a fine line, I'll admit.
Of course I recognize the idfference. And I hate brave for somewhat abusing their users like they do. Still, that is not what op said. I won't repeat it again, but that fundamental difference you are speaking of was not highlighted by them. Possibly leading other people to believe that cryptocurrency is bad to use as a whole, which as yourself has said is not right if one repsects privacy.
test post
test post (I wanted to see what was beyond the rainbow)