New revelations about SCL and CA (Cambridge Analytica) have revealed that they may have even altered the Brexit Vote. In fact an article quotes the CEO of Camridge Analytica as bragging that they got Trump elected using dirty and undetectable tricks.
If any of these is true it is safe to assume that Cambridge Analytica is not alone, and they have likely influenced more than just the US election. What’s more, there could be other companies that Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram and other US based social platforms used data from whether knowingly or unknowingly. This has been the big evil that I’ve warned about for years, that these free social platforms are analyzing and mining your data for bad purposes. Apparently there are no limits to the violation of your privacy, proven social experiments conducted by Facebook and likely the others etc.. It’s all in their TOS essentially. It’s well known that using any of those platforms including Gmail is the same as typing your most personal thoughts and messages to the bots and analysts at the big social media companies and government minders.
Going back to all of this, I thought we were told that it was the Russians who elected Trump (without any evidence ever being provided mind you)? Now it comes out that private companies based in the West have been influencing elections and I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. The bigger question is who are the clients of Cambridge Analytica? I don’t think we have to look far considering the relationship to the UK government and Royal Family.
This is very interesting and about high time. There is hardly any legal basis to single out the banning of cryptocurrency and ICOs when so many other questionable things are promoted on Google, Facebook and Twitter. They could have probably gotten away with banning a few confirmed scam coins or ICOs but they’d also have to demonstrate similar action in other industries that they have never done with this.
The allegation of collusion is important and I am very curious how this plays out. My suspicion is that these actions are voluntary. The CEOs of these companies were essentially convinced and paid out to it by stakeholders of fiat and traditional securities. If not that, here would be an interesting defense if they could make such a defense legally in this scenario I propose. Of course all 3 of the major companies are based in the US and are subject to the laws of the US including being obliged to co-operate by providing the NSA backdoors for spying. What if under the pretext of national security these companies were forced to ban cryptocurrency advertising? It may sound far fetched but the US government even wanted to put tariffs on Canada during negotiations for NAFTA under the pre-text of National Security.
It is hard to say for sure what the truth is but I’ll be following these lawsuits as some of the truth may come out in the reply to the claim, discovery and other filings. One thing I am sure of is that neither company came up with the idea of their own volition. It would be another thing to prove which external force or entity is really responsible for this. Financially it makes little sense since they all stood to profit more from the increased advertising revenue so it is very plausible that some other stakeholders made an offer they couldn’t refuse whether in the form of enticement or being obliged by law (even if falsely under the pre-text of national security).
The USA’s President Trump has officially banned the Petro Coin. This is actually encouraging and not unexpected. To me it speaks volumes that it can work but is working, otherwise there would be no point in banning it. Apparently it will also be possible to exchange Petro for the Russian Ruble. As I suspected I feel strongly that the initial funding largely consisted of China, Russia and Iran and that more support will be ongoing once the coin is launched.
As an investor I am a bit frustrated with this ICO (as I am with most these days) because it took way too long to find information about it and individual investors have been locked out. They really do risk alienating the audience they were targeting as I am getting frustrated and losing interest fast. However, the prospects for this first state backed coin remain high and will either boom or bust I predict. And there will probably be a lot more booming considering what is at stake and the support that Venezuela has.
If the US thought the Petro Coin would be worthless and had no hope of succeeding it’s unlikely they would ban it. Regardless of what we may personally feel, this is a strategic tactic by the US to stop the first country to try to evade sanctions placed on it. It will be another precedent if Petro succeeds and other sanctioned countries can freely trade in this similar way or ecosystem created by Venezuela.
Ironically Venezuela is helping to keep the cryptocurrency dream alive which is becoming your own bank and that no one has the right to freeze, take or prevent the spending of your money.