On Christmas Eve reports started dropping onto Twitter of major YouTube Channels having large amounts of content censored and deleted. The common factor was talking about crypto currencies or blockchain technology. No warnings were given and the damage was widespread.
I put this into the wider context of mass censorship on YouTube away from alternative and non-main stream topics and creators and toward the mainstream “safe” for advertisers content that YouTube is able to consistently make money on.
My extra thoughts on this: there’s definitely an element of the fall out from the COPPA settlement, this saw Google fined for collecting data on children watching videos in contravention of a clear law. Whatever directed them to take this action, it is yet another reason why our Crypto Class Action case, links below, is so important!
Some news broke today in Australia concerning how class action cases can be funded. This concerns a part of Australian law related to “common fund orders”. The short answer is, this is positive for our case because we were never going to rely on a common fund order, while other cases competing for funding were.
Here’s the report:
The High Court has queried the legality of court orders requiring members of class actions to pay litigation funders even if they aren’t part of a funding agreement.
The key issue in the cases brought by Westpac and BMW is whether the Federal Court of Australia and NSW Supreme Court were empowered to make what is known as a “common fund order”.
BMW challenged an order by the NSW Supreme Court requiring anyone receiving a payout from a class action over faulty airbags to provide 25 per cent of the money to litigation funder Regency Funding for bankrolling the court case.
The High Court found by a majority neither the laws relating to the Federal Court nor the NSW Civil Procedures Act empower a court to make a common fund order.
“It is not appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in a representative proceeding for a court to promote the prosecution of the proceeding by the making of a CFO,” the judgment said.
Norton Rose Fulbright disputes practice leader Cameron Harvey said the decision was a significant setback for the business of litigation funding and plaintiff law firms operating in Australia.
For our case, we quickly decided not to look for a common fund order because it was unneccessary and less economic than signing up claimaints directly given the scale of damages available. Also our libertarian outlook didn’t like the idea of forcing people who hadn’t signed up for a case to contribute to it.
Instead JPBLiberty went down the far harder path of gathering signatures on a real funding agreement (which many of my readers have signed) rather than relying on taking 25% after the settlement from people who did not consciously join the suit before we fought it.
If anything this is good for us because it means OUR case is stronger in comparison to other Aussie cases that were relying on Common Fund orders.
Beyond that, the news is that we are working on some very comprehensive legal opinions and work to bolster the case and secure the funding necessary. It’s hard to give more details about these steps right now as this needs to be carried out confidentially at this stage.
As ever, we’re always looking for more people to join our suit so if you had any kind of crypto currency holding or a stake in any related blockchain business, please check out the website and see if you can sign up. If you want to talk about a significant contribution to funding the case, we are open to any new approaches.
I recorded this over a week ago, the video went up quickly on 3speak but it’s taken me a while to get back into the grove with updating my own website. I’ve got to say that I’m increasingly of the opinion that Steem provides a better blogging platform than my own site. I will explore the reasons why in the future but for now I’m still updating here.
Up until now there seems to have been a sort of Stockholm syndrome mentality within crypto insiders. Some crypto insiders believe there were lots of scams and the whole industry needed to feel guilty about them. They just took the punishment from these huge mega corporations and felt they deserved some of it! Evidence just doesn’t back this up. We have to fight that mentality which seems to be a very strongly held belief in a myth. You can read more about why this is a hoax here.
While the suit names Facebook, Google and Twitter directly, Hamilton said he considers Facebook the principle offender, and alleged that the tech giant instigated the ban.
In comments to Decrypt, a Facebook spokesman who did not want to be quoted by name said the social network would look into any cases where unfairness is alleged. The spokesman added that the initial ban had been intentionally broad to better understand the crypto market; the intent had been to create clearer policy around what constitutes acceptable crypto advertising.
Does this phrase: “the initial ban had been intentionally broad to better understand the crypto market” mean Facebook decided to ban an entire industry before they even understood it? That would be an astonishing admission. Or are they just gaslighting now?
In the meantime JPB Liberty has received an acknowledgement of our initial letter sent to Google in Australia. They confirmed Google Australia was talking with Google in the US and a few other details.
We were also covered by Nadja Bester of BeInCrypto with an excellent and detailed explanation of the case.
This video I recorded in Jerusalem was especially good at driving sign ups to our case.
If you want to join the fight, instructions below. We’re always looking for class members as no-win-no-fee participants and at the same time, if you want a financial stake in this project, you can send money by PayPal or various crypto and you will receive a cryptographic token representing your share in the damages.
Andrew Hamilton wrote this, it needs to be more widely disseminated. It directly refutes the malicious terms and conditions Facebook put into action when they banned cryptocurrency (and associated blockchain projects) from advertising online in January 2018.
I’ve been running @jpbliberty‘s Class Action Lawsuit against Facebook, Google and Twitter’s Crypto Ad Ban for over a year now.
The one objection I hear most, including from people in the Crypto Industry itself, is: “But there were so many scams”. I’ve heard people saying that over 80% of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) were scams.
Well ITS A BIG LIE!
And one that was used by Facebook etc to cover their own illegal conduct.
I’ve done a detailed investigation of this issue and found that the level of scams in late 2017 / early 2018 was quite low and most Crypto Projects and actual ICOs were legitimate.
The allegation that most Crypto Industry projects were scams and billions were lost in ICO scams is patently false and lacking in any real evidence. ICOs were just a new way of startups raising money from private investors which has gone on since the dawn of investing.
It is mostly just 3rd hand hearsay and trolling of competing projects. The number and value of actual scams compared to the size of the crypto industry is small.
Out of $489M in scam losses only a tiny percentage (1.25%; $6.1M) related to cryptocurrency in any way.
Of that 2/3rd were just other scams asking to be paid in cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency investment scam losses were less than half a percent of total losses ($2.1).
Most of those were just impersonating cryptocurrency projects. Twice as much losses were from scams impersonated the Australian Tax Office!
I have not been able to find a single example on the ACCC’s scamwatch site of an actual cryptocurrency project ICO which was a scam.
Compared to the size of the Crypocurrency Industry, even in Australia, the percentage of scams is very low.
Huge numbers of legitimate Crypto projects
This is an amazing infographic (source) showing a huge number of legitimate cryptocurrency projects competing with the existing tech players in every area. I did not put this together, but have looked into many of the projects listed and have not found a single scam.
Big Lie comes from one flawed report
Tellingly for a Big Lie, all the news allegations about a very high percentage of ICOs being scams can be traced back to a single flawed report by a group called Statis.
I don’t know who they are and they have no official status. But under the terms of their own report they classified Reddit posts about an ICO that other people said was a scam as an ICO scam. They also admit the vast majority of money lost on so called ICO scams was in just 3 scams. Thus they vastly inflated both the number of ICOs and the number of scams based unverified, defamatory hearsay and trolling. Anyone can say another project is a scam. It doesn’t make it so.
Failed projects are not scams. 95% of all tech startups in all areas will fail. That is the nature of innovation and capitalism.
An ICO in late 2017 / early 2018 required smart contracts to be set up on the Ethereum (or other) blockchain. A simple Reddit post does not constitute an ICO. And other people calling it a scam on social media doesn’t make it one. The level of unjustified and defamatory attacks on other projects in the Crypto Industry is high. It is not evidence of a real scam.
The technical requirements for actually sending money to an ICO and receiving ICO tokens during late 2017 & early 2018 were pretty high and certainly not for naive investors.
Having purchased or mined Ethereum (ETH);
Sending the ETH to your own cryptocurrency wallet;
Sending ETH from your own wallet to the ICO wallet.
No one without a decent understanding of Crypto could even work out how to do this! So the people who lost money in real ICO scams knew about crypto in detail and were, in that sense, experienced investors.
I note here that because of the very large amounts of money which early crypto true believers made and were looking to reinvest, the huge numbers of projects available to invest in, and the practical limitations on individual investor’s time, the strategy of just putting some money in everything your heard of, without doing due diligence, was a legitimate investment strategy.
Yes, you might lose some money to scams, but it made sure you had money early in the projects which would be hugely successful and make up for all the other failed and (few) scam projects. This is the essence of the entire venture capital business model. If you want a safer investment, invest in companies that are regulated and on the stock market Enron or Bear Stearns (oh… wait..)
So this is the BIG LIE which Facebook used to cover its own illegal banning of all crypto industry ads on 30 Jan 2018.