Pump-and-dump schemes, fraud, ransomware, multi-level marketing, spam, incentivizing selfishness, greed, and general unethical behaviour, buying elections, quasi Nazis creating their own coins, et cetera. In my opinion, over the years the evidence has piled up tall enough to show that crypto"currencies" are an overal detriment to society.

It therefore surprised me to discover that behind the ♡ donation button on top of most Lemmy instances except for Beehaw, there is an option to donate “crypto”. This sets a bad example. Thoughts?

  • arsCynic@beehaw.orgOP
    0·
    2 months ago

    “Depending on where users are located, it might be the only realistic option they have if they want to donate.”

    Could you give us an example of such a location please?

    “Besides, traditional payment systems like PayPal, MasterCard, Visa etc are all problematic in their own right.”

    Whataboutism fallacy.

    • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
      1·
      2 months ago

      Could you give us an example of such a location please?

      Russia, which is blocked from other international payment systems. Or any other authoritarian country where you might not necessarily want the government to know where you donate your money to.

      Whataboutism fallacy.

      We’re still throwing around fallacies like it’s 2010? Okay, I cast fallacy fallacy!

      When talking about whether a donation button should have a specific payment option, it’s relevant if the alternatives it offers are better or worse. Otherwise, the argument might as well be to not have a donation option at all.