Facebook censors anti-fascist and anarchist groups, falsely linking them with extreme-right violence – WSWS

By Kevin Reed 22 August 2020

In a significant escalation of political censorship on its platform, Facebook published an update on Wednesday to its Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy that labels left-wing and anarchist organizations as violent and falsely amalgamates them with fascist militia groups and right-wing extremists associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory.

In a Newsroom blog post entitled, An Update to How We Address Movements and Organizations Tied to Violence, Facebook says that it is taking action against Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts tied to offline anarchist groups that support violent acts amidst protests, US-based militia organizations and QAnon.

While Facebook says it already removes content calling for or advocating violence and bans organizations and individuals that proclaim a violent mission, the blog post says that we have seen growing movements that, while not directly organizing violence, have celebrated violent acts, shown that they have weapons and suggest they will use them, or have individual followers with patterns of violent behavior.

That the expanded Facebook definition of dangerous people and groups is aimed at stifling speech on the social media platformwith 2.7 billion monthly active users worldwideis shown by the fact that its policy now includes organizations and movements that have demonstrated significant risks to public safety but do not meet the rigorous criteria to be designated as a dangerous organization and banned from having any presence on our platform.

Facebook then outlines the actions it will take to suppress content from those it deems dangerous and violent but do not fit the rigorous definition of either description. These measures may include removal of accounts from Facebook and Instagram, limiting recommendations, reduced ranking in News Feed, reduced visibility in Search, removal from Related Hashtags on Instagram and prohibition from advertising and fundraising.

As Facebook is listing off the many techniques it utilizes to ban, delete and suppress contentwhich it refers to in corporate-speak as remove, reduce and informit becomes clear that these methods are being perfected in the service of political censorship against oppositional, left-wing and socialist views that are increasing in popularity and pose a threat to the capitalist foundations of the social media giant. Facebook currently has a Wall Street value of $762 billion and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg has accumulated a personal wealth of $100 billion.

The Newsroom blog post goes on to say that Facebook has already removed over 790 groups, 100 Pages and 1,500 ads tied to QAnon and additionally imposed restrictions on over 1,950 Groups and 440 Pages on Facebook and over 10,000 accounts on Instagram. Lumping anarchists and left-wing groups in with the far right, Facebook says, For militia organizations and those encouraging riots, including some who may identify as Antifa, weve initially removed over 980 groups, 520 Pages and 160 ads from Facebook. Weve also restricted over 1,400 hashtags related to these groups and organizations on Instagram.

Among the accounts of anti-fascist and left-wing activists that have been shut down in the present Facebook dragnet are the following:

There is no question that by including such groups in its list of dangerous and violent individuals and organizations, Facebook is supporting the drive by the US political establishment and the US Justice Department to equate opposition within the working class and among young people with the violence of alt-right, neo-Nazi and fascistic militia individuals and groups.

The recent history of ideologically motivated violence in the US exposes Facebooks false identification of these groups with the extreme right. According to a report by Natasha Lennard in the Intercept, It bears repeating, ad nauseam, that the far right has carried out 329 murders in the last three decades; none have been attributed to antifa. Between 2009 and 2018, white supremacist and far-right extremists were responsible for 73 percent of extremist murders in the U.S. And thats not even to mention the state-sanctioned, racist killings carried out by the police.

The effort to label the left as violent has also intensified over the past three months during the nationwide and global mass protests against police violence and repression that was sparked by the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police on Memorial Day. Both the Democrats and Republicans along with the corporate media have slandered these demonstrations as violent and riots and, as Trump has stated numerous times, part of the radical left and anarchist takeover of American cities that must be put down with law and order.

In June, at the height of the George Floyd protests, Attorney General William Barr created a task force dedicated to counter anti-government extremists who engage in indefensible acts of violence designed to undermine public order. In his directive to all Justice Department law enforcement representatives, Barr wrote, Among other lawless conduct, these extremists have violently attacked police officers and other government officials, destroyed public and private property, and threatened innocent people.

Furthermore, Barrs memo said that the acts of violence came from extremists of all persuasions including the extremer right-wing Boogaloo militia advocates who have engaged in murder and other criminal acts along with those who identify as Antifa on the left.

Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas) chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on August 4 where he claimed, Across the country, were seeing horrific violence, were seeing our country torn apart. Violent anarchists and Marxists are exploiting protests to transform them into riots and direct assaults on the lives and safety of their fellow Americans.

This position is not unique to Barr, Trump and the Republican Party. On the fifth night of the George Floyd protests in cities across the US that have been devastated by decades of attacks on living standards and social programs, the future Democratic Party nominee for President in the 2020 elections, Joseph Biden, denounced protesters for burning down communities and carrying out needless destruction.

While police and federal agents were beating protesters and National Guard troops were being called up and mobilized against peaceful demonstrations, Biden blamed the public for the decay in the cities, saying, Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not the American response. In late July, Biden reiterated his stance, calling for the prosecution of arsonists and anarchists.

These same sentiments have been expressed by Representative James Clyburn (Democrat, South Carolina) and Democratic Mayor of Chicago Lori Lightfoot who, according to the New York Times, after police assaulted protestors calling for an end to police violence, said, To those who engaged in this criminal behavior, lets be clear: We are coming for you.

The purpose and results of the recent closed-door meetings between the Silicon Valley tech monopolies and the White House in the preparations for the US presidential election in November are becoming obvious. As reported by the WSWS, representatives of nine major tech firmsincluding Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Redditmet with US government law enforcement and national intelligence agencies on August 12 to discuss election security with little or no information reported to the public following the online gathering.

The endless references by Facebook and the others to those who identify as antifa as violent and dangerous are proof of the completely reactionary character of the entire amalgamation of left-wing and anarchist groups with far-right extremists who have actually committed acts of violence and killed people while proclaiming support for the Trump administration.

A Google search of antifa will only yield a Wikipedia entry for the name. There is no official website for an organization with this name in the US, Europe or anywhere else in the world. While there are clearly individuals who identify with the message of anti-fascism, the claim that an organization called Antifa is coordinating acts of extreme violence against the US government is entirely fabricated.

Instead, what the ruling establishmentof which the social media monopolies are a critical elementfears more than anything is that masses of workers and young people will break free from the two-party political system and begin to organize independently of the entire capitalist political setup on the basis of the fight for socialism. The ever expanding scope of political censorship on social media and on the internet more broadly is certain grow in the weeks leading up to the November 3 election and in its aftermath as the US ruling class seeks to suppress all signs of opposition.

The author also recommends:

Big tech firms meet with US national security agencies in advance of November elections [14 August 2020]

US Attorney General Barr gives fascistic tirade against Antifa, Black Lives Matter [11 August 2020]

Trump threatens to close social media platforms after Twitter puts fact-check warnings on his tweets [28 May 2020]

Google is blocking the World Socialist Web Site from search results.

To fight this blacklisting:

Originally posted here:

Facebook censors anti-fascist and anarchist groups, falsely linking them with extreme-right violence - WSWS

Last Night Of The Proms to censor Rule Britannia with instrumental-only performance at this years event – NME

The BBC will stage orchestral versions of Rule Britannia and Land Of Hope And Glory at this years Last Night Of The Promsfollowing reports that it was considering their removal.

Producers were reportedly in discussions about scrapping the two British anthems from the setlist because of the songs perceived associations with colonialism and slavery [via The Sunday Times].

But Sky News today (August 24) confirmed that the BBC will include the anthems for its annual live concert series, which will run this year at Londons Royal Albert Hall without an audience due to coronavirus pandemic. Lyrics for both songs will not be sung, however, and orchestral-only versions will be performed instead.

Last Night Of The Proms at Royal Albert Hall. CREDIT: Rob Ball/Redferns

A spokesperson confirmed to Sky News that, with much reduced musical forces, the Proms will curate a concert that includes familiar, patriotic elements such as Jerusalem and the national anthem, including performances from soprano Golda Schultz and the BBC Symphony Orchestra.

Youll Never Walk Alone will be added to the programme for the purposes of capturing the mood of this unique time, the spokesperson added.

The news comes after Prime Minister Boris Johnsons spokesman intervened in the row to argue that songs should not be removed from the event. Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden agreed, and Tweeted that he had raised concerns with the BBC.

The discussion comes in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, which has been heightened in recent monthsfollowing the death of George Floyd, anAfrican American man who was killed in Minneapolis in May after a white police officer knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes.

Dalia Stasevska, who is conducting this years Last Night Of The Proms, is keen to modernise the evenings repertoire and reduce the patriotic elements. Dalia is a big supporter of Black Lives Matter and thinks a ceremony without an audience is the perfect moment to bring change, a BBC source toldThe Sunday Times.

The concert is due to take place on September 12 without an audience.

See more here:

Last Night Of The Proms to censor Rule Britannia with instrumental-only performance at this years event - NME

TikTok sues Trump over his pending order to ban its app – KPQ

NEW YORK Video app TikTok is suing the Trump Administration over its efforts to ban the popular Chinese-owned service over national-security concerns.

TikTok, which is owned by Chinas ByteDance, insisted Monday that it is not a national-security threat and that the government is acting without evidence or due process. The company filed suit Monday in federal court in California against the Commerce Department, President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, saying that it sought to prevent the government from impermissibly banning TikTok.

President Donald Trump has issued two executive orders in August, first a sweeping but unspecified ban on anytransaction with ByteDance, to take effect within 45 days. He then ordered ByteDance to sell assets used to support TikTok in the U.S.

Over past year, TikTok has tried to put distance between its app, which it says has 100 million U.S. users, and its Chinese owners. It installed a former top Disney executive as its American CEO and named two other Americans chief security officer and general counsel. TikTok has also said it is willing to sell its U.S. operations and has held talks with Microsoft with to buy parts of its English-language app. Other companies and investors have reportedly expressed interest as well.

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have shared concerns about TikTok that ranged from its vulnerability to censorship and misinformation campaigns to the safety of user data and childrens privacy. But the administration has provided no specific evidence that TikTok has made U.S. users data available to the Chinese government.

Instead, officials point to the hypothetical threat that lies in the Chinese governments ability to demand cooperation from Chinese companies. TikTok says it has not shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government and would not do so, and that it does not censor videos at the request of Chinese authorities.

In excerpts of from its forthcoming complaint, TikTok said that it has protected U.S. user data by storing it in the U.S. and Singapore, not China, and by erecting software barriers that help ensure that TikTok stores its U.S. user data separately from the user data of other ByteDance products.

The company says Trumps Aug. 6 order banning TikTok with no notice or opportunity to be heard violated its Fifth Amendment due-process rights. It also says that the order is not acting based on a bona fide national emergency and seeks to ban activities that have not been found to be an unusual and extraordinary threat, which it says is required by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Trump cited as one of the bases for his order.

Getting a court to overturn the governments determination that it is a national-security threat would be very difficult, said Christian Davis, a Washington lawyer with Akin Gump whose practice focuses on foreign investment and international trade.

The administration has significant discretion with national-security issues, he said. While due-process claims might be easier to argue, its not clear what TikTok could gain. He said the company could possibly win a delay in the orders implementation or force a rewrite of the order to address concerns.

See original here:

TikTok sues Trump over his pending order to ban its app - KPQ

Why KFC is censoring their slogan around the world – Yahoo News Australia

Fast-food giant Kentucky Fried Chicken have censored their famous slogan and told customers worldwide to forget it - at least for now.

Fans of the Colonels fried chicken already know the recipe of 11 secret herbs and spices is Finger Lickin Good, but KFC is urging their customers to avoid licking their fingers during the current coronavirus pandemic.

The slogan has been in use for 64 years and is globally recognised, however it will be paused in advertising around the world effective immediately.

The famous slogan is being censored due to the coronavirus pandemic. Source: Supplied

In a media release, KFC said the wording doesnt feel quite right.

We find ourselves in a unique situationhaving an iconic slogan that doesnt quite fit in our current environment. While we are pausing the use of Its Finger Lickin Good, rest assured the food craved by Aussies isnt changing one bit, KFC Australias Chief Marketing Officer Kristi Woolrych said.

In all seriousness, we think its important to take a moment to have a little fun during these tough times, but rest assured we'll still be providing Finger Lickin Good chicken and a responsible experience for our amazing KFC family and customers, here and around the world.

KFC says the slogan will be back - when the time is right.

The fast-food giant announced the slogan will be paused worldwide. Source: Supplied

Do you have a story tip? Email:newsroomau@yahoonews.com.

You can also follow us onFacebook,InstagramandTwitterand download the Yahoo News app from theApp StoreorGoogle Play.

Read more:

Why KFC is censoring their slogan around the world - Yahoo News Australia

5 films that have been banned by Glasgow’s censorship board over the years – Glasgow Live

With Glasgow home to both the world's tallest cinema and a host of picture houses throughout the city, it can certainly be considered a city with a local population who love the movies.

Be it the latest releases at the likes of Cineworld and the Odeon or more niche and classic films and small boutique festivals at the likes of the CCA and the GFT, there's something for everyone.

That being said, it's strange to think that the powers that be in the city had a reputation for censoring films they thought might offend public decency and taste in the not too distant past.

Here's our list of a few such movies that fell foul of the censors, some of which encouraged movie-lovers in the city to travel outwith the city boundary just so they could catch a film:

Tropic of Cancer

The 1970 American drama, an adaptation of Henry Miller's controversial 1934 novel, was banned by the council in Glasgow in March of 1971.

With one magistrate banning the film said to have referred to it as 'filthy, disgusting, depraved'.

The Devils

The British historical drama horror, directed by Ken Russell and starring Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave, followed on from Tropic Of Cancer in also being banned in 1971.

It was, according to the book The Sexual State: Sexuality and Scottish Governance (1950-1980) by Roger Davidson and Gayle Davis, the first time where Glasgow magistrates banned a film on grounds it "offended good taste and public decency".

The Sex Adventures of the Three Musketeers

This "adults only" retelling of the legend of the Three Musketeers German film fell foul of the city magistrates in 1974 on basis of its 'strong emphasis on immorality taking place behind the walls of convents and monasteries'.

Monty Python's Life of Brian

The 1979 British comedy film starring and written by the comedy group Monty Python has to be the most famous example of film censorship in Glasgow. The city was one of 39 local authorities in the UK that refused to grant the film a general release on blasphemy grounds.

While its possible it might have been shown as part of a double-bill with Airplane at the ABC cinema on Sauchiehall Street, plenty of residents (especially in north Glasgow) flocked to the Rio in Bearsden to see the film.

The 'unofficial' 30-year ban was only lifted back in 2009, when the council's licensing and regulatory committee approved a request from the GFT to show the biblical satire under a 15 certificate.

Romper Stomper

The controversial Australian film which depicts the life of a neo-Nazi skinhead gang, was banned by the city back in 1993, leading to the GFT among others to cancel their proposed screenings.

That saw people (plenty of skinheads among them) travel to East Kilbride and the UCI in Clydebank in their droves to see the film , which stars Russell Crowe.

This story was originally published in September 2020.

View original post here:

5 films that have been banned by Glasgow's censorship board over the years - Glasgow Live

FEC questioned on election ethics of Big Tech censoring Laura Loomer but not her rival – Reclaim The Net

Major social media platforms and tech services have a long history of banning and deplatforming Laura Loomer. And theres a remarkably long and comprehensive, covering pretty much every nook and cranny of a persons online activity, list of them: Facebook, PayPal, Uber, Lyft, Twitter, Medium, and many others.

But despite all that, her status last week changed from a commentator and activist hounded by Big Tech to a Republican congressional candidate in Florida. And while Loomer has faced censorship without breaking any law, and could in fact become a lawmaker could it also be that the corporations that have chosen to ban her in the past almost by making an example out of her, are now in violation of US campaign finance law by actively undermining her campaign?

This is the question that has been raised by the American Principles Project in a letter addressed to the Federal Election Commission.

The non-profit wants to know if fairness of the November race in Florida for a seat in the US Congress may be tainted by Loomers exclusion from giant and other tech companies platforms. This is particularly troublesome in light of the fact that her opponent, Democrat Lois Frankel, is facing no such obstacles and could therefore be given unfair advantage by a bunch of private corporations undermining the electoral process (also known as election meddling).

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

The letter doesnt quite spell it out that way, but it still poses an interesting question: if Frankel can benefit from full access and presence on dominant social media networks, while Loomer is being completely cut off does this not amount to the in-kind contribution to a favored candidate?

Other questions the think tank wants answered by the Election Commission include whether Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter show up on Frankels filings as in-kind contributors, and whether the Commission thinks social media platforms may agree to materially contribute to political campaigns by choosing to disseminate campaign ads for for one type of candidate, while censoring and excluding another?

In what the letter refers to as otherwise normal circumstances, tech companies would be considered free to censor who they like, the non-profit suggests; but now that Loomer is a Republican candidate for Congress, this policy may need to be reassessed in view of election rules, it argues.

See the original post:

FEC questioned on election ethics of Big Tech censoring Laura Loomer but not her rival - Reclaim The Net

Kraken exec: 5 reasons why Bitcoin is at the beginning of a bull run – Cointelegraph

Bitcoin is at the beginning of an extended bull run, and there are increasingly clear reasons to accept it.

That is the opinion of Dan Held, head of growth at United States cryptocurrency exchange Kraken, who listed the latest evidence for bullish Bitcoin (BTC) on Aug. 24.

Many commentators have argued that Bitcoin is just getting started when it comes to price rises. For Held, the contributing factors are both Bitcoin-specific and macro-related.

Over 97% of Bitcoin unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) or parts of a transaction that involve coins returned to the initiator are in profit.

As Cointelegraph reported, this means that less than 3% of transactions occurred at a higher price than the recent high of $12,400. Typically, this occurs at the start of bullish periods.

Put another way, almost 98% of all BTC is now worth more than when someone received it, meaning that long-term investors are better off than almost any time in the history of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has now stayed above $10,000 for the second-longest period in its lifespan, tied with July 2019.

Bitcoin price periods about $10,000. Source: Twitter

Meanwhile, as noted by CasaHODL co-founderJameson Lopp, one-year active supply has reached its lowest since the early days in 2011.

Folks don't want to part with their bitcoin, he summarized.

Bitcoin current supply velocity and active supply velocity chart. Source: Coin Metrics/Twitter

Held referred to 61% of the total BTC supply remaining stationary for over a year, something that Cointelegraph previously identified as a bullish signal investors are choosing to holdand not to trade or sell.

Exchange balances likewise hitting lows contributes to the theory.

The above factors occurring in the months after Bitcoins third block subsidy halving bolster the bullish argument.

Miners have recovered from the loss of revenue, while demand has remained conspicuous, especially from corporate and institutional buyers.

At the same time, Bitcoins inflation rate has dipped as a result of the halving, making repeated large-scale buy-ins an increasingly expensive business.

When MicroStrategy made Bitcoin its new treasury reserve currency, its CEO,Michael Saylor, highlighted monetary policy as a major concern that pushed him away from fiat currency.

Held agreed, frequently pointing out the erratic money printing by central banks as a key argument in favor of Bitcoin adoption.

This policy, he said, is now in overdrive, in the week that the Federal Reserve is tipped to reveal a plan to boost inflation.

Lastly, global debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is now higher than at any point outside of wartime.

This almost unbridled debt mountain in excess of $255 trillion, even before coronavirus shows no signs of slowing.

The practice speaks to the classic Keynesian mantra regarding debt and its consequences for those who create it: In the long run, we are all dead.

Originally posted here:
Kraken exec: 5 reasons why Bitcoin is at the beginning of a bull run - Cointelegraph

New Binance Exclusive Reveals The Bitcoin Exchange Might Have A Serious Problem – Forbes

Bitcoin, despite its growing mainstream popularity, is a favourite tool of cyber criminals, with one ransomware variant, known as Ryuk, thought to have stolen $61 million since it was created in 2018, according to the FBI.

Ransomware hackers, who encrypt their victims' files before demanding bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies to unlock them, began increasingly targeting hospitals and healthcare providers during the coronavirus pandemic, Interpol reported in April, with criminals taking advantage of an influx of remote workers.

Now, researchers who say they are concerned by this trend have compiled information that could be damaging to Binance, one of the largest bitcoin exchanges in the worldsuggesting the exchange is failing to prevent Ryuk hackers from turning the stolen bitcoin into cash.

Binance, now the world's largest bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange by volume, was created by ... [+] Changpeng Zhao in 2017.

Researchers found that bitcoin worth over $1 million from several addresses connected to Ryuk ransomware attacks made its way to a wallet on the Binance exchange over the last three years, with the wallet still active as of this month.

"Out of the 63 sampled transactions worth around $5,700,000, it was found that over $1 million was sent from the hacking team wallets to the Binance exchange platform to cash out their ransom payments," the researchers, who asked to remain anonymous, wrote in a document seen by this reporter and shared with Binance.

"Thirteen other bitcoin addresses associated with Ryuk, containing a total of $1,064,865, followed a similar pattern. All were sent from the hackers wallets to several other addresses, and eventually to Binance, enabling them to cash out their ransom payments."

The remaining $4.7 million worth of bitcoin traced by the researchers is currently still being held at various off-exchange addresses, suggesting Binance is the cyber criminals' exchange of choice.

Asked about the report's findings, the Binance security team said that "fighting money laundering, ransomware, and other malicious activities is a never-ending endeavor at Binance."

"It is our top priority to ensure the safety of our customers and the integrity of the broader crypto space," Binance said, pointing to a number of "security features" and "engineering techniques" it uses to identify illicit activities, including "detection algorithms to flag potentially malicious activities."

"Unfortunately, when it comes to tracking illicit activity on-chain, attribution is not always black and white," Binance added, explaining "the recipient may be completely unaware of the fraudulent source of the transaction" and the exchange "has a wide variety of customers operating on its platform."

Binance chief executive, Changpeng Zhao, often known simply as CZ, has previously said the exchange relies on mixture of in-house "blockchain analysis" and social media reports to prevent hackers and cyber criminals using its services.

Cracking down on unlawful use of bitcoin exchanges is "truely a tough balance," one widely-respected blockchain industry expert said via Telegram, prefering to speak anonymously.

"If you clamp down with policies and procedures in order to try to slow these bad actors, it negatively affects all the innocent users. [There's] no easy answer."

Binance's own analysis of the fund flows found the Singapore-based bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange Huobi received around 400 bitcoin indirectly sourced from a combination of ransomware campaigns with the now defunct exchange BX Thailand also receiving some 140 bitcoin from the Ryuk ransomware.

Meanwhile, Binance this month helped Ukraine authorities take down a group of criminals involved in a global $42 million ransomware and money laundering operation.

Read more:
New Binance Exclusive Reveals The Bitcoin Exchange Might Have A Serious Problem - Forbes

Digital Dollar To Be In Competition With Bitcoin – Forbes

Digital dollars and central bank digital currencies are fast becoming a reality, with China this month reportedly expanding a pilot program for its digital yuan.

While the U.S. has barely even begun thinking about a digital dollar, its potential implications have generated extensive debate, with a former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Raghuram Rajan, saying bitcoin and Facebook's libra cryptocurrency may eventually be "in competition" with central bank digital currencies.

Central bank digital currencies, led by China, are poised to change the way countries distribute and ... [+] manage money, with some taking inspiration from bitcoin, Facebook's libra and other cryptocurrencies.

"I would like to think that [bitcoin and libra] are also in competition with the central bank digital currency," Rajan, who served as the International Monetary Fund's chief economist before taking the top job at India's central bank, told CNBCs Beyond the Valley podcast this week.

Central bank digital currencies, sometimes referred to as CBDCs, are expected to work just like regular coins and notes issued by central banks but exist entirely online, with the U.S. Federal Reserve potentially issuing digital dollars via Fed accounts.

The race to create a working central bank digital currency was kick-started by Facebook's announcement of its libra cryptocurrency last year, however the social media giant was forced to curtail its ambitious plans after central bank governors around the world balked at the idea.

"The worry with libra was that, in its early forms, it was on the one hand very ambitious in what it wanted to do but very vague in what the safety precautions would be," Rajan said, explaining Facebook wanted to "become a world currency" without telling anyone how data would be protected or what safety mechanisms it would use.

"That's the worst possibility for central bankers: something that's going to take over the world but we have no strong confidence in that risks would be contained."

Rajan expects competition between central banks will drive CBDC development over coming years, with countries worried rival currencies might displace their own if they don't keep upbut private currencies such as bitcoin and libra will continue to exist.

"Different private currencies will do different things and it may be bitcoin has value going forward just as a store of value," Rajan said, with Facebook's libra perhaps used for "transacting" while bitcoin is used as a "speculative asset," similar to gold.

Bitcoin's value has soared over recent years, with the bitcoin price climbing to around $20,000 per ... [+] bitcoin in late 2017. While the bitcoin price has fallen by almost half since then, it is increasingly being used a store of value by investors.

This is a view echoed by many in the bitcoin and cryptocurrency community, with bitcoin investors often championing it as "digital gold" and investors increasingly flocking to bitcoin in times of heightened risk.

"CBDCs and bitcoin represent opposite ends of a spectrumfrom centralized extensions of the legacy financial system to a trustless, decentralized alternative that derives value from broad consensus," Diogo Monica, president and co-founder of Anchorage, a cryptocurrency custodian and member of libra's governing council, the Libra Association, said via email.

"While competition is inevitable, it wont be winner-take-all," Monica added. "Well likely witness the adoption of multiple assets all along the spectrum based on their utility, as well as other geopolitical factors."

Rajan also expressed concern that CBDCs could result in government overreachsomething else that bitcoin supporters argue cryptocurrencies help to offset.

"The beauty of the cash in our hands is that it's anonymous," Rajan said, asking, "even if you're not doing anything illegal should the government know the details of every transaction you make?"

Follow this link:
Digital Dollar To Be In Competition With Bitcoin - Forbes

I would never invest one cent in Bitcoin, says Ryanair CEO – Cointelegraph

Micheal OLeary the CEO of major budget airline Ryanair has come out very bearish on Bitcoin (BTC).

Recently speaking to The Times, OLeary likened Bitcoin to a Ponzi scheme and advised investors to avoid it:

I have never, and would never, invest one cent in Bitcoin, which I believe is equivalent to a Ponzi scheme. [...] I would strongly advise everyone with any shred of common sense to ignore this false story and avoid Bitcoin like a plague.

OLeary was referring to an apparent crypto scam Bitcoin Lifestyle, which claimed to have his approval in a promotional campaign.

A bogus news article on a fake news outlet claimed that, in an interview on the Late Late Show, O'Leary shocked audiences and the host Ryan Tubridy by showing how much money he was making with the Bitcoin scheme which advertises itself as an automated trading system.

Per the scam's campaign, it was enough to drive National Ireland Bank to phone the show, and attempt to stop the bit from being aired.

One problem is that the National Ireland Bank does not exist.

Using the image of wealthy and famous people to promote cryptocurrency scams is a very common tactic to gain credibility among potential "investors." In early April, a Bitcoin trading scam claimed the involvement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex Prince Harry Charles Albert David and Meghan Markle.

In March, Janet Jacksons billionaire ex-husband, Wissam Al Mana, demanded Facebook to reveal who paid for ads that featured his image while promoting a crypto fraud.

View original post here:
I would never invest one cent in Bitcoin, says Ryanair CEO - Cointelegraph