Token Daily

Fuckerberg

1

Now a lot of you are saying, why does Facebook continue to pick Mark Zuckerberg to be CEO? Why should they pick Mark Zuckerberg who killed and ate a baby in 1990? Should they even waste 2 seconds on considering Mark Zuckerberg who killed and ate a baby in 1990? Well first of all it's not true. It's not true that Mark Zuckerberg killed and ate a baby in 1990. So if you have any proof that Mark Zuckerberg killed and ate a baby in 1990 stop gossiping and go right to the police with it.

1

cannotthinkofarandom :flag-us: America 3 hs ago

Blatant lies aren't "political speech"

1

FetcherLeVache :flag-cn: Canada 3 hs ago

Yeah, well, I permanently deleted my Facebook account a couple of days ago after telling all my contacts why.

I got a lot of "Likes" between posting my intent to abandon the misguided platform and actually doing so.

I suspect many are headed the same way.

1

Taint_my_problem :flag-us: America 3 hs ago

Lying’s on the table boys!

Warren should buy super outlandish pro-Warren Facebook ads like:

Elizabeth Warren read the Mueller report...in five minutes.

Elizabeth Warren was a Harvard Law Professor...at the age of 7.

Elizabeth Warren created the CFPB with one hand tied behind her back while nursing two babies.

Elizabeth Warren won her state debate championships speaking only in pig Latin.

Elizabeth Warren won the Boston Marathon despite a bad case of bone spurs.

Elizabeth Warren took so many selfies that it’s now the top result when you google “picture”.

Elizabeth Warren holds the world record for the number of Wells Fargo execs she’s made cry.

Elizabeth Warren is the most cited legal scholar in the field of being a fucking badass.

1

quarkral 4 hs ago

Facebook doesn't even want to be in the position of deciding what is and isn't acceptable free speech. All it does is give them bad press. They literally just want to make money.

We need legislation to regulate the advertising industry. Issues like data privacy and fake news are economic externalities of advertising, and we cannot rely on companies to fix it themselves. Breaking up companies won't magically fix it either.

1

Globalist2 4 hs ago

This exact policy is what created the current mess.

1

second_hand_castoff 4 hs ago

It should not allow misinformation, disinformation or out right lies. It's one thing for a candidate to run a negative ad that is factual, but its completely different to run one born from conspiracy theories.

1

Vincesolo :flag-il: Illinois 4 hs ago

Break up Facebook

1

randompantsfoto :flag-va: Virginia 4 hs ago

Into what, though? One for younger people, and one for the olds? I mean, I get spinning off Instagram and Whatsapp, but neither of those is the problem. The issue is that Facebook has become the dominant social media site because people can share whatever they want with their friends (and strangers). Separating off different functions (like messenger or marketplace) isn’t going to do a thing about misinformation being virally spread via the core platform functionality.

1

KeyWaste 4 hs ago

Then it's time to police Facebook. Looking at YOU Congress!

1

MinimumWageMage 4 hs ago

Fuck morals, I guess

1

twojs1b 4 hs ago

Cashing in before the industry finally gets regulated. Big pharmas doing the same thing.

1

redditkarmadotnet 4 hs ago

I can't believe I once thought Mark Zuckerfuck was a decent person.

1

NameMerchant 4 hs ago

Ha! He was never a human. Very close, certainly.

1

coldandpain 4 hs ago

Then fucking break facebook up. Throw the state at them, soon as democrats get back in power. And blow facebook into fractions of itself using the law books.

1

DrowningDrunk 4 hs ago

Fine. Ban political ads on social media.

1

thenewyorkgod 4 hs ago

Then it's time to play in the mud.

Dems should run false ads regarding trump raping a 13 year old.

Oh wait, that really happened!

1

John082603 4 hs ago

[I made this for you](https://imgflip.com/i/3dmgyi)

1

ImAmazedBaybee 4 hs ago

Nice. I shall hold that thought throughout the election. Thanks!

1

nachoandrew 4 hs ago

Why would he want to cut out business?

1

TheBirminghamBear 4 hs ago

No one wants you to police political speech.

We want you to not allow political campaigns and super PACs to buy ads containing lies, mistruths, and propaganda and broadcast them to millions of people.

It isn't that hard. When I make ads you tell me I can't run them because they have too much fucking text in them in proportion to image.

You're telling me you can't add clarifications that political ads are required to contain inherent truths or at least not contain inherent lies?

So, look, Grandma Marge can continue to post whatever batshit fucking crazy memes she wants to her newsfeed. 'Cause, freedom of speech.

But Donald Trump's political campaign should not be allowed to buy $10 million worth of political ads that say that evidence has been found linking Hillary Clinton to the murder of Martin Luther King, and then broadcast that bullshit ad to my feed and everyone else's in America.

1

biskitwheels 4 hs ago

I think it's high time for the federal government to create campaign laws about authenticity and sourcing. Compel facebook to require a federal document to be signed verifying the source and veracity of political articles, videos and ads by the uploader. If it ends up being lies or fake or whatever, Facebook has done their part and the uploader gets felonies and massive fines and exclusion from future campaign activities for the next x years. DMCA laws that exonerate the host and provides a means of reporting and takedown notices. These are already in place. Edit : the problem with my idea is DMCA laws are in place to protect the monies of the ruling class. Applying this as a restraint to how the ruling class spend their monies to get their guy in office is contradictory to why these laws are here to begin with (hint: to protect the ruling class)

1

gamechanger55 4 hs ago

That's a free speech violation

1

osaucyone 4 hs ago

You don't understand how the 1st works, do you?

1

brownribbon :flag-nc: North Carolina 4 hs ago

Only the government can violate free speech.

1

mods_are_snowflakez 4 hs ago

I hope this salamander in human skin gets the damn book thrown at him in 2020

So tired of getting privacy violations from big tech

1

USSRcontactISabsurd 4 hs ago

Uh, its truth in advertising.

1

TwilitSky :flag-ny: New York 4 hs ago

Choose to delete this lie factory. Your life will be better for it.

1

CSirizar 4 hs ago

Absolutely damn right. Got rid of FB and Twitter and can feel significantly less toxic shit oozing out of my pores. The remaining ooze is Reddit, but it’s not that noticeable, actually.. hehehe.. Seriously though, deleting those 2 shit piles has been a blessing. Verily I say, Fuck You Zuck!

1

joshandsam1982 3 hs ago

You got it, we control our experience to social media

1

robertcole23 4 hs ago

Deleted it close to 7 years ago. Literally have NEVER missed it, and with the news in recent years it seems it wasn’t a bad idea.

1

AutoModerator 4 hs ago

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

magenta_placenta 5 hs ago

There is free speech or there is not. Today, across the social media spectrum, there is not. Until the online public forums have been taken out of the hands of huge money machines and placed in the public domain, nothing is going to change. Time to sue them as publishers rather than common carriers, which they clearly are not.

1

BlisteringBernacle 9 hs ago

LoL

1

hnuser54 - @hnuser54 9 hs ago

The passive voice of "Facebook...has been assailed" is amusing given that the present publication has been the one leading the charge.

The central exhibit of this piece is an assertion is that a political ad should be censored by Facebook and others because it "falsely claimed [Biden] committed corrupt acts in Ukraine". It did not make such a claim. The ad, which was much harder to find than the dozens of articles declaring it "false", repeated a video statement by Biden that he used a US-backed loan deal to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, and it repeated a statement by the Ukrainian prosecutor claiming he was fired because he was investigating a company associated with Biden's son. But other sources assert that the US wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he was corrupt himself, or because he was getting in the way of other corruption probes.

See https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/fact-trump-tv-ad-misleads-... and https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-20... for the ad and two fairly well researched but opposing takes on the issue.

This isn't libel, this isn't accusing someone of a crime, this didn't fabricate sources or quotes: it's just political innuendo. Demanding censorship of electoral material because it's tacky or slightly misleading by dubbing it "false propaganda" doesn't seem right.

jdkee - @jdkee 9 hs ago

As another poster notes, Facebook's speech codes are far more restrictive than those afforded by the First Amendment. Of course, as a private entity Facebook is not constrained by the 1A.

This is simply pandering by the CEO to placate possible investigations by a conservative administration.

gfosco - @gfosco 9 hs ago

It was a good speech. Reasoned and thoughtful, providing historical precedents, and examining the benefits and risks unique to global internet platforms. Can't say I agreed with everything, but on the whole, I think it's a great direction. Worth a watch, or a read when the text comes out.

throwaway_law - @throwaway_law 9 hs ago

Its been beat to death but Freedom of Speech is a limit on Governmental Power to silence citizens.

What is often missed in the Free Speech discussion is the concept of the "marketplace of ideas", that is the importance of Free Speech is allowing the market to decide which ideas/speech is the best. The problem with FB and all other platforms is they are replacing the market with their own algorithms to maximize advertising revenue.

Facebook standing for Free Expression is such a play on words...Facebook stands for monetizing the content users give them for free.

lacker - @lacker 7 hs ago

The text of the speech is available here: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-...

It's too long to paste here. I found it interesting to read, though. You don't have to be logged into Facebook to read it.

zestyping - @zestyping 8 hs ago

Facebook suppresses free expression every day — by consistently promoting clickbait above factual content.

Ranking algorithms constitute editorial intent, for which Facebook is responsible.

neonate - @neonate 9 hs ago

http://archive.is/ocSqN

mc32 - @mc32 9 hs ago

Let’s see how this works out. Certainly I think they are in their rights to censor illegal activities and speech. But we’ll see if the delve further into censoring otherwise legal free speech.

If they start looking into truthfulness of political ads, they’ll eventually have to monitor all ads for truth and deceit. They probably don’t want to go there.

I also hope this turns into a productive discussion.

wavefunction - @wavefunction 9 hs ago

Zuckerberg continues to increase my support for a breakup of the facebook/instagram/whatsapp/oculus. He's not the sort of person that should be entrusted with the awesome power he's wielding over the world, if there are any.

rubbingalcohol - @rubbingalcohol 9 hs ago

Facebook's Community Standards are the antithesis of free expression.

fuuiiyyuuu - @fuuiiyyuuu 9 hs ago

The largest freest easily available platform is 4chan.

However I'm sure more then a few people want it taken down. People suck.

disce_pati - @disce_pati 8 hs ago

assertion failed

notadoc - @notadoc 9 hs ago

Why do people still use Facebook?

Show all comments on Hackernews

3

2

3

2

2 2

emkay99 1 year ago

Lotta bigotry at that website. Especially among the commenters.

2

monkeydeluxe 1 year ago

I see a complete lack of respect in the comments and article for Democrats. That, and the standard sock puppets who are there to build consensus against agreeing with the article. Both of which would likely not make a Democrat feel welcome there. But "bigotry"? I guess if you're overly sensitive.

1

emkay99 1 year ago

Making cracks about Democrats (which I am) isn't bigotry. But there's also more than a little redneck Southern nationalism with a racial flavor.

1

monkeydeluxe 1 year ago

Oooohhh... so only Southerners can be racist. I like your flavor of obvious bigotry. Now, if you really want to see the sock puppets and "redneck southern nationalism" in action go read [the comments here](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-08/nbc-deletes-oprah-our-future-president-tweet-cnn-confirms-2020-ambitions). Wow. It's a lot like reading the crazy hate filled anti-Trump comments on Huffpost.

1

emkay99 1 year ago

Of course not. Racism is just more common and more obviously displayed here in the Deep South -- where I have lived for more than 50 of my 75 years. And there are still a *few* of us liberals down here, too, so if you're a typical Trumper, you can go fuck yourself. And take your treasonous leader with you.

1

monkeydeluxe 1 year ago

Of course, the overall trend of folks moving out of 'Blue States' and into "Red States' could spell disaster conservative politicians running in national elections...that is unless the folks ditching their over-taxed, insolvent, liberal bastions on the West Coast and New England actually understand that the conservative policies in their new home states are precisely what attracted them there in the first place...somehow we doubt that will happen.

This mass migration could have an impact on the 2020 elections.

But... my anecdotal evidence from talking to hairdressers who moved out of the overtaxed states is the people moving out are not Democrats. A quick look at voter registrations from some of the "inbound" states shows unaffiliated or independent voters with the biggest gains.

So my guess is this migration will just further widen the red/blue divide in states like California and Illinois.

0

5 2

2

3

2

4

1 2

2

5 5

SnapshillBotFan Yesterday

No nation is going to easily cede control over the issuance of currency, certainly not to a multinational tech company. I think the folks in Silicon Valley have microdosed so much they fried their brains.

8

Eu-is-socialist 15 hs ago

Ask the EU nations. Some of them did it quite easily.

0

Cthulhooo 20 hs ago

If I were to willingly choose my future currency overlord Facebook still would be on the bottom of the list.

9

Revererand Yesterday

Thank you for the article 🙏

3

SnapshillBotFan Yesterday

Epic title!

3

dgerard Yesterday

Inside Facebook’s Botched Attempt to Start a New Cryptocurrency

Major partners bolted after Washington challenged the social-media giant’s foray into finance

By AnnaMaria Andriotis, Peter Rudegeair and Liz Hoffman

Oct. 16, 2019 12:19 pm ET

By AnnaMaria Andriotis, Peter Rudegeair and Liz Hoffman Oct. 16, 2019 12:19 pm ET

Share
Text
47 Responses

David Marcus gathered a team inside Facebook Inc. FB 0.36% ’s headquarters in May to toast a skunk works project a year in the making: a bitcoin-like payments system that the social-media giant figured would upend the global flow of money.

“We’re going to change the world,” Mr. Marcus, a Facebook executive and the project’s architect, told employees as they sipped Champagne, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Turns out, changing the world isn’t so easy.

Five months later, the libra project is on life support after high-profile backers dropped out of the network under pressure from lawmakers and regulators. President Trump, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Rep. Maxine Waters, the Democratic chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee—three people who agree on little—have all criticized it. European officials are trying to halt its launch.

With libra, Facebook barreled into the world of finance with techno-utopian bravado, then found itself caught in a tangle of regulatory skepticism and entrenched interests. Lawmakers, already uncomfortable with how Facebook handled privacy around users’ photos and posts, have drawn the drawbridge on users’ money.

The Treasury Department said it was concerned that libra could be misused by money launderers and terrorist financiers. Payment companies played down their role in libra in private meetings with regulators and lawmakers’ offices, and big banks approached by Facebook declined to sign on.

Facebook executives seemed unsure how to navigate the bureaucracy of finance, once showing up to a meeting at the Treasury Department and another at the Federal Reserve with brief overviews of libra that left unanswered questions.

To achieve its grand ambitions to mint a new currency, Facebook leaned on a loosely knit alliance of companies, many of whom signed up amid wariness of the tech giant treading on their turf. When libra came under fire, partners including Visa Inc., Mastercard Inc. and PayPal Holdings Inc. quickly jumped ship.

Libra’s bumpy rollout is a big setback to Facebook’s efforts to reduce its near-total reliance on targeted advertising. It is also a warning to technology giants that are expanding into financial services. Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Google are each working on payments projects of their own, which could give them access to sensitive personal financial data at a time when public trust in Silicon Valley is eroding.

“Do you really think people should trust Facebook with their hard-earned money?” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) asked Mr. Marcus during a congressional hearing in July.

Facebook shows no signs of abandoning libra; representatives from its remaining backers met Monday in Switzerland to move the project forward. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has agreed to answer questions about it at a congressional hearing next week.

“The core of the financial system hasn’t changed in 50 plus years. There’s a reason for that,” Mr. Marcus said in an interview. “This is hard change.”

When Facebook went public with thinly sketched plans for libra in June, it hoped to delegate the details to a coalition of partners, the Libra Association, and position the effort as more of a public utility than a corporate land grab. It was envisioned as a digital alternative to government-backed currency, widely accepted by merchants world-wide and capable of being sent instantaneously across borders at low cost.

Still, the loss of key corporate partners—payments startup Stripe Inc. and online vacation site Booking Holdings Inc. also have dropped out—makes a planned 2020 launch a challenge. Some of the companies were supposed to provide the technical wherewithal to get users’ money into the system. Remaining partners include Uber Technologies Inc., several venture-capital firms and PayU, a European payments processor.

Mr. Marcus said that he would have preferred it if the big payments companies stayed in the Libra Association, but that they can still choose to enable consumers and merchants to use the new coin without being official members.

“The nice thing about the way we’ve designed this, all of them can still do that. My bet is they will,” Mr. Marcus said.

Facebook has been experimenting with consumer payments for more than a decade. The company introduced its own coin, Facebook Credits, in 2009 that could be used to buy virtual goods inside videogames and from its online gift shop. A Facebook subsidiary has licenses to transmit money in 48 states.

Mr. Marcus joined Facebook five years ago from PayPal to run its Messenger unit. In May 2018, he took on a new role exploring how Facebook might use the blockchain technology that underpins bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

The strategy he landed on was more ambitious than what any U.S. tech company had tried in financial services. Facebook would create its own digital wallet that would enable libra to be used to buy things online and off, pay bills and send money domestically and overseas to friends and family members. A user would spend dollars to buy libra coins from authorized resellers, hold them in a digital wallet and then spend them on purchases at libra-friendly retailers or send them to others.

The company sees the product as a way to keep people plugged in to Facebook longer, and have it travel with them around the web and offline. It also said its goal is to make financial services more accessible to people world-wide, especially those without access to the regular banking system.

In Mr. Marcus’s telling, dozens of other companies, eager to reach Facebook’s massive user base, would join the Libra Association, contribute $10 million apiece to build out a global payments network and build their own apps to interact with it. To overcome the volatility that had undermined bitcoin, libra’s value would be pegged to a pool of currencies and government-backed assets.

Mr. Zuckerberg, who has led Facebook into one new area after another—advertising, hardware, original TV shows—greenlit the project. Others had a less optimistic view. Finance chief David Wehner asked Mr. Marcus how libra would recoup its costs and make money. Staff at WhatsApp, a messaging service owned by Facebook, viewed integrating libra into the app as a low priority.

[cont.]

12

DropaLog 13 hs ago

> skunk works project. *skunkworks project (2 words, no caps, business), or Skunk Works project (3 words, 2 caps, CIA/U-2/50s flattops). Matters only 'coz lead paragraph.

1

dgerard Yesterday

[cont.] Facebook began lining up partners, targeting incumbent payments giants whose support would help underpin the project and ensure they wouldn’t publicly criticize libra from the sidelines. In pitches to Visa, Mastercard and PayPal, Mr. Marcus’s team played to their fear of missing out as people started conducting their financial transactions in the same online social spheres where they hung out with friends (Facebook), shared messages (WhatsApp) and interacted with their favorite brands (Instagram). Already in China, hundreds of millions of consumers shunned credit cards in favor of WeChat Pay, a digital wallet built into one of the country’s biggest messaging platforms. Those companies faced a dilemma familiar to many that find themselves in the way of Silicon Valley’s ambitions: Join or risk being left behind. Attaching their names to libra and making a small investment—the $10 million Facebook wanted is about one-third of Visa’s profit in a day—would earn the card networks access to billions of potential customers. Even though libra transactions would take place outside their systems, credit and debit cards could be used to load money into libra wallets, which could earn fees for the card networks. PayPal was among the first to join. The project was championed by Bill Ready, PayPal’s chief operating officer. He and Mr. Marcus had been close allies since 2013, when Mr. Marcus, then PayPal’s president, negotiated a deal to buy a startup led by Mr. Ready for about $800 million. From there, Facebook moved on to online merchants interested in cutting their card processing bills. Uber, Lyft Inc. and Booking Holdings signed on. Visa and Mastercard were among the last to lend their support, doing so after hearing about others already on board. Mr. Marcus’s team spent relatively less time with regulators before the libra announcement in June. When Facebook executives met with officials of the U.S. Treasury, they responded to many questions by saying details would be ironed out later, concerning officials. Mr. Marcus said that Facebook was taking a consultative approach with regulators and wanted to hear any “profound concerns” they had early on. He added that answers to some questions could only be provided after the Libra Association had been formed and members agreed on an approach. “In early meetings we didn’t have all the answers, but that was by design,” Mr. Marcus said. “For something that at that point in time was a white paper with an idea to launch in 2020, I think that’s fairly normal.” In June, Facebook unveiled the currency by publishing a conceptual document that explained how the currency would work and naming 27 other “founding members” as diverse as streaming-music service Spotify Technology SA and telecom giant Vodafone Group PLC. The goal was to build a financial system that didn’t rely on central bankers or Wall Street middlemen. Washington, which has had Facebook in its sights for some time, wasn’t impressed. Rep. Waters asked Facebook to declare a moratorium on libra’s launch and members of her committee drafted the “Keep Big Tech Out Of Finance Act” to limit Facebook and other Silicon Valley giants from expanding deeper into financial services. Lawmakers grilled Mr. Marcus over two days of hearings in July, and he promised libra wouldn’t launch until regulatory hurdles were overcome. Around that time, representatives from several companies in the Libra Association hopped on a conference call to coordinate their responses to the growing backlash. A cacophony of voices drowned out potential solutions: A glitch in the call-organization software turned on many people’s microphones at once. The social-media giant positioned itself as just one member of the association that, on its own, didn’t have the power to dictate how the network would function. It asked some other partners to publicly lobby for the project. They demurred. Meanwhile, some of Mr. Marcus’s allies were sidelined. PayPal announced in June that Mr. Ready was stepping down as the company’s chief operating officer, removing a key voice of support for libra. Frustrated, regulators and lawmakers began asking Facebook’s partners for answers. Over the summer, the Treasury Department sent a letter to companies including Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and Stripe asking for an overview of their money-laundering compliance programs and how libra would fit into them. Some of the companies felt hamstrung in responding without more clarity from Facebook. As the pressure grew, Facebook tried to rally its partners. It invited Libra Association members to an Oct. 14 meeting in Geneva to review the group’s charter and to pick a board of directors. Association members hadn’t yet ponied up the $10 million per partner that Facebook was seeking. They had signed a nonbinding letter that allowed them to walk away from the project if they changed their minds. ome companies thought Facebook overstated their involvement when it announced the project in June and resented being described as “founding members.” “It’s important to understand the facts here and not any of us get out ahead of ourselves,” Visa Chief Executive Al Kelly said on the company’s earnings conference call in July. “No one has yet officially joined.” The invitation to the Geneva meeting called the partners “initial members,” instead. But by early October, support from several partners was crumbling. At a meeting for Libra Association members in Washington to prepare for the Geneva summit, attendees were asked to voice their concerns. Mastercard and Visa executives said they were likely to remain members but hadn’t made final decisions. PayPal skipped the meeting and pulled out of libra the next day. Lawmakers turned up the heat. Sens. Brown and Brian Schatz (D., Hawaii) warned the CEOs of Visa, Mastercard and Stripe that if they stayed involved, they could “expect a high level of scrutiny from regulators not only on libra-related payment activities, but on all payment activities.” Visa and Mastercard sent executives to meet with the senators’ staffers. Soon after, they announced they were dropping out of the project, as did Stripe. Booking Holdings, eBay Inc. and Mercado Pago, an Argentine payments provider, also withdrew. The loss of Visa and Mastercard’s support threatened to remove one of the main ways users would have moved money into and out of the libra system—a potentially crippling blow. “As far as Visa and Mastercard were concerned, I have to commend them for having the boldness and willingness to explore something that’s that radically different,” Mr. Marcus said. “Given the pressure they all got, it’s hard to blame them [for leaving].” Tensions have grown within Facebook. Senior executives have asked Mr. Marcus why a new cryptocurrency—with all the baggage that comes along with one—is necessary to advance Facebook’s finance ambitions. Couldn’t the company work with dollars or bitcoin, they asked? Mr. Marcus, undeterred, has been reaching out to major U.S. banks about joining libra, according to people familiar with the matter, which could allow consumers to load money into their libra wallets from their checking accounts. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., however, had rejected Facebook’s invitation back before the June announcement. Both declined in part because they worried a cryptocurrency could be used for criminal activities that would violate strict money-laundering and sanctions rules. On Monday in Geneva, 21 companies, including Facebook, committed to the libra project and elected five board members to oversee the Libra Association. Mr. Marcus said the next task is hiring a full-time managing director for it. Despite Mr. Marcus’s pronouncement of changing the world at the May celebration, libra is expected to start small, by helping friends and family members send money to each other at a low cost.

11

SnapshillBot Yesterday

1 BTC = 1 BTC

Snapshots:

The detailed synopsis of precisely ... - archive.org, archive.today

I am just a simple bot, not a moderator of this subreddit | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

4

3

5 2

RambleFeed 15 hs ago

Congratz! A lot of people covering your success! I know a good amount of people converted from Safari this last week because of the exploit that was reported sometime last week and got trending on Front page reddit.

Another Article: https://app.tokensquare.com/news/brave-surpasses-8-million-active-monthly-users

8

ahh_yess_nubian 16 hs ago

I’ve made like ~$12 worth of BAT from just using it at work as my default browser lol

I really just like the idea of not using a google browser and the crypto integration is a bonus

5

ashutosh_crypto 18 hs ago

Way to go, so proud of being part of the system

10

ladiesman_420 Yesterday

Brave is awesome, no yt ads is epic.

Been using for a couple months and it's blocked over 100k ads. Although I have encountered a few sites that don't function correctly with it but it is still my preferred browser.
I love that they want to give us a way to control our data and I will continue to support that.

Go Brave!

10

Sal_T_Nuts 17 hs ago

Had to change back to Firefox unfortunatly because Brave has a lot of problems. I realy liked the browser but having to put the shield down for making a website work is a little annoyance. Some pages don’t even load at all. Maybe i’ll switch back when everything is fixed.

0

bzzking Yesterday

Does Brave auto block YT ADS?

1

Blueberry314E-2 13 hs ago

Yes

1

Blueberry314E-2 Yesterday

That's true, I've also encountered a couple sites that don't work, but it's *almost* always fixable by turning off the switch under the lionhead icon.

4

GaiaPariah 20 hs ago

As a web developer, I love using Brave as my main browser because it forces me to make sure that the applications I work on are able to run smoothly with the tighter security and privacy restrictions that Brave imposes. Brave is awesome!

3

Blueberry314E-2 Yesterday

I love watching the growth of Brave. From a cool idea that I barely understood to the awesome little browser that blocks ads and actually pays me to browse. It's easy to bash a team for this or that, but what really matters at the end of the day is adoption. These guys are killing it.

18

2

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2018 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2018 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily