• Bady@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I am an atheist and I believe the world would be much better without religions. Having said that, I don’t conisder it as a scam in itslef. Instead they must have been something evolved over the time due to our ignorance, fear and helplessness. The very same factors that still keep them going.

      But hell yeah, people are exploited in the name of religion. I’m from India, one of the largest so called democracies, currently under the governance of a fascist hindutva party that thrives on polarizing people in the name of religion.

      BTW I was actually looking for specific instances of scams carefully plotted by known people, companies or even countries instead of broad answers like religion.

      • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        11 months ago

        Having said that, I don’t conisder it as a scam in itslef

        I think the more correct thing to say is that Organized Religion is a scam. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being religious (provided you don’t force those views on others), but organized religion always winds up rotten at the top - and it’s not surprising. Organized religion is one of the most powerful tools for controlling people, even if it wasn’t (though it might have been) intended to be that way at the beginning. A king/president/dictator can threaten the lives of their subjects, but only a holy man can threaten their immortal soul (from the perspective of the devotee anyways).

        • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Now that’s a take I completely stand behind and agree with. I couldn’t have put it better myself. That said, some religions were not made with the intent of controlling others. I don’t think Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism were made with the intent to control people. We can argue about Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as they were made for control by their founders, and what they intended for these movements after their deaths we do not know (or at least I don’t, maybe someone out there does).

          • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            Again - I’m not arguing necessarily that any of them started out that way, in fact - I’m willing to bet that very few (looking at you, Mormons) actually were. Most religion (in my humble opinion) just stems from folks trying to make sense of an unfathomable universe using what tools are available to them at the time. But once you have the religion, and you have holy men/women who have the ability to excersize some form of power over their flock, you’ll inevitably find corrupt people flocking to those positions, as they do in every position of power. Then over time they’ll carve out more power for themselves and more authority, find ways of extracting influence and power from their positions until soon you’ve got “holy men” living in palaces with the authority of kings.

            It’s just human nature for positions of power to eventually become corrupted to some degree, and positions of religious authority offer an unparalleled lever in which to move the masses, which only serves to make it more attractive to would-be tyrants

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Just FYI, that is specifically why The Baha’is don’t have clergy. They do have an administrative body with local, national, and global levels of influence, but those are 9 member councils that are elected by the members of the faith, who must use the Baha’i rules of Consultation to reach unanimous decisions. Also if any of them ever appear to want the position, they are automatically ineligible to hold said position. It’s worked well for about 60 years so far.

        • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being religious (provided you don’t force those views on others)

          Hum. That’s like saying “there’s nothing wrong with being convinced that 2+2=5”. There’s something intrinsically mistaken about it, and I don’t think it’s defensible.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Religion was needed, but at some point logic and critical thinking should have been enough.

        The issue is the wealthiest benefit when the masses don’t have the tools to use that. They want people who won’t question rules and blindly follow them.

        Humans are just animals, we’re not born with those abilities, we need to be taught.

        So we see education outright cut or forced to focus on rote memorization rather than the process to understand and figure shit out on our own.

        We should be past religion as a species, but it’s not automatic, we have to continually teach the next generation to think for themselves

      • ewe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Just imagine what could have been done in the last 300 years if every dollar that was donated to churches went to some other cause, or back into the pockets of the masses. There is an immense amount of wealth that is trapped in the collective real estate, bank accounts, etc owned by churches. I’m not even talking about megachurches or the mormon’s giant stack of cash, just mom’n’pop little parishes that are everywhere across the US.

        If ALL that money was still kicking around in the economy and in the pockets of people to spend on real things, building real businesses, etc…we’d be way better off.

        Always makes me sad when I visit my in-laws who live in a particularly bible thumpy area and you go and there are spots there where churches outnumber normal businesses. It seems like it’s just a huge drain on the local economy devoting that much money into propping up churches of various kinds…

        • FLemmingO@lemm.ee
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          There’s a church across the street from my home in a small rural town in Oklahoma. It sits completely empty except for about 90 minutes from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM when about 6 cars pull up into the parking lot and maybe 15 people saunter in for Sunday service after ringing a loud bell announcing to the whole neighborhood. None of these attendees live in the neighborhood I might add.

          There are literally dozens of other churches just like it throughout the town. It blows my mind that a religion that claims to be about spreading the love of their savior and saving as many people as possible from literal damnation would let a resource like that go unused. They could have volunteers there every day of the week helping to improve the community and help people in need but they couldn’t care less.

            • applejacks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/who-gives-most-to-charity/

              Once again, the biggest givers are found to be concentrated in “Bible Belt” states in the South or where Mormons make up a large portion of the population. On the other hand, scant-giving households are heavily concentrated in relatively wealthy and secular New England.

              I’m not even religious myself, just find it annoying that reddit atheist cool guys think that religious people are all greedy and selfish, when this opposite is actually true.

              • oʍʇǝuoǝnu@lemmy.ca
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                A church in the city I work for is being used as an extreme weather shelter for homeless/at risk people. I received a couple dozen phone calls from the parish when it was first announced who were pissed about homeless people using their church for shelter. Any time I tried to explain the irony of their complaint it just made them angrier.

                I’m not saying this to paint a picture of all religious people, but from my experience the one’s I have come across tend to not care about anyone in their community not in their circle.

              • ewe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Considering giving to any church 501©(3) themselves are considered “charitable donations” when it comes to taxes, this rings a little hollow. If you consider a church as a charity itself, and those churches are soliciting donations every week in services, of course you’re going to see higher charitable giving from areas with a lot of churches/religious. That said, my gripe is not with religious based charities, it’s with churches. Salvation Army can continue to do what it does, religious affiliated childrens hospitals, etc. The amount of money that is spent on congregations is just a waste and it’s a shame.

                ~signed, an atheist (ex)reddit cool guy

              • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yeh I hate that reddit atheist attitude, it embarrasses the rest of us atheists/agnostics. Of course it got brought over here too.

                Organized religion has done a lot of bad, but they have done some good too.

      • davefischer@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Religion is used as a scam by many people. It is also used in other ways by other people.

      • kylua@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Sometimes I mull over what state we’d be in as a society if instead of celebrating a man’s deeds we had been celebrating nature and the environment that hosts us since the beginning.

        I can’t help but think there would be a lot less damage to the environment and less greed.

      • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        BTW I was actually looking for specific instances of scams carefully plotted by known people, companies or even countries instead of broad answers like religion.

        Lesson for next time, use the text part of your post to define what you are asking or are interested in hearing. Otherwise you get everyone giving glib answers that suck like the above.

        BTW, I’m reading Smartest Guys In The Room, the book about Enron, you might be interested in looking up that company. They used very complex financial instruments to deceive shareholders and Wall Street and boost their stock price. Bunch of assholes, some of the shit they pulled was obscene.

        • Bady@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Lesson for next time, use the text part of your post to define what you are asking or are interested in hearing.

          Right, I should’ve seen it coming. But as long as the discussions are healthy, instead of mudslinging, I’m kind of okay with it.

      • spiderman@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        thrives on polarizing people in the name of religion

        things have been like this for a long time, irrespective of the parties. but this has been going too far for the past two decades, especially after the current prime minister started his period.

      • CuriousGoo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I was gonna write about the fascist aspects of the country, but I wouldn’t say that it’s something completely unknown; many of my peers are okay with fascism just because there is no centerist alternative, as what we have already seen leftists are not going to be better given the same amount of power.

        When it comes to religion, it should have been a personal thing rather than systematically integrating it with each aspect of our lives like how it was initially intended.

        Sometime earlier in my life I took a decision of not going to my place of worship; this helped decouple my belief in something bigger that I don’t understand, and a cult made by man.

  • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    Homeopathy, acupuncture, ozone therapy… all “alternative medicines” basically.

    • Tanoh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Like the old joke, “What do you call alternative medicine that works?” “Medicine!”

      If some herb, plant or extract has a proven effect it will be adopted by real medicine, and all that is left in alternative medicine is the scams that do not work.

      • anon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’re almost right. Modern medicine needs to synthesize natural compounds to profit fully from them. They can’t just use natural remedies and present them to patients because they can’t patent them.

      • DrQuint@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        There’s a slight gotcha here:

        I’m in Asia and a lot of traditional chinese medicine you can buy is just regular medicine with a marketing disguise hiding the fact. Why yes, this is a box of whatever the fuck extract, very interesting, old northern recipe to cure the shit, let me just check what’s written on this paper, and, yep, there it is, it’s just Loperamide but with an additive to make it taste like Ginseng. Got it.

      • GBR24_B_S@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I worked for a medical clinic years ago.

        One doctor was pushing natural hormone therapy.

        I asked one of the other doctors. He wouldn’t touch it.

        He told me he sees thousands of patients each year. Some number will get cancer, and some number of them will sue him.

        If he prescribes a medication, he can defend himself by pointing to the medical studies showing the safety of the medication.

        If he prescribes anything natural, there are no studies showing safety, because nobody can patent natural substances. Therefore there isn’t much money to be made, so nobody spends the money to do good studies.

        Even if it was a miracle drug, he wouldn’t prescribe it.

    • CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Once I made a joke online about paying for homeopathy by dipping a dollar in a jar of water and giving them the jar, and like five people I know unfollowed me lol

    • LazaroFlim@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I have a pinched nerve. I went to many doctors, done many tests, went to months of PT and was still in pain. I went to my acupuncturist and she is able to release the muscles around the pinch enough that my right arm doesn’t feel constantly numb. I a man of science. I don’t believe in he Chi traveling my body etc but the physical result of the acuponcture cannot be denied.

    • noughtnaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Hey umm so … homeopathy. There is a case to be made --hear me out here please-- that it might have been effective once, but now we’ve got millions of “practitioners” doing things that clearly do not work.

      The reasoning is obvious.

      The concentration of practitioners within the population is clearly too damn high (insert meme here). To show how effective it can truly be, all we need to do is to dilute the ratio … by a lot.

      Don’t you agree that this is worth looking into?

      (/s in case anyone is in doubt)

    • alokir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      A few weeks ago I got the flu and went to see my doctor. She wasn’t in so I got sent to a substitute who examined my ear with a weird beeping device. I asked her what it was and she just said that she practices “Chinese medicine”.

      She told me her device indicated that I have huge problems with my thyroid and she said I should get some sort of crystal necklace that’s good for that and that I should apply some essential oils daily. Of course, she happened to sell those at a good price.

      I went to have a blood test and my thyroid was fine, my values were right in the middle of the acceptable range.

    • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I used to get acupuncture with a tend unit attached to the needles as a kid for my chronic pain. Holy fuck did I feel better afterwards. It was probably the tens unit. I have a small one at home and it is great for relaxing my tight muscles.

  • Efwis@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ponzi schemes, especially the insurance companies. They really are a Ponzi scheme.

    Think about it, they promise you things asking for money, then when you need their services they decide where you go, how much they will pay (leaving the rest for you to pay as a deductible), then they turn around and increase your costs for their services, that they fight tooth and nail not to pay anything.

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    11 months ago

    A large portion of art/artifacts are forgeries. Everyone is alright with it because galleries and collectors want to brag about having some unique old art piece and forgers are very good at making pieces that would fool anyone who is just looking at it.

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      Additionally, that it’s okay to work yourself until death, because when you die you’ll actually live a new eternal life of permanent luxury.

    • Andiloor@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think most people buying a lottery ticket know that it’s a loss on average. I think people buy it for the experience and the dreams that it represents. From that perspective, I don’t think that it’s a scam for most people but rather just buying a slice of fantasy

        • Quickswitch79@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well no, because thousands of people have won it all over the world. Yes, it might be 14 million to one, but for a couple of quid I don’t care.

  • zabadoh@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Toothpaste.

    You only need to squeeze out an amount the size of a pea on to the bristles of your toothbrush.

    The image of squeezing along the entire length of the brush bristles was concocted by an ad agency, a la Mad Men, to make consumers use their toothpaste faster, hence buy more product.

    • fidodo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’ve never used that much. I just assumed it was to look nice since a pea sized about would look silly in a picture. I think it I used that much my mouth would be so full of foam it would be uncomfortable

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I swear it’s also why they made that newer garbage cap design that slowly leaks toothpaste and gums up unless you carefully clean the end and fully close it every time. I know y’all know what I am talking about!

    • Duchess@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      in fairness the directions on the back of the tube still state you should use a pea sized amount. i feel like that’s not all that helpful though, peas come in lots of different sizes.

    • afox@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Fools up your game. Tom’s toothpaste is so absolutely classy. My gums never felt this good. Better ask jeeves.good ass toothpaste.

  • beanz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    printer ink, it costs them like 3 cents to make each cartridge and they sell it for so god damn much.

    they also go out of their way to have chips in the cartridges and in the printers that make the printer not function if any ink is even running low, doesn’t matter if you want to print something in black and white you had better fucking buy more cyan ink

    • StThicket@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      The whole issue here is that people fall for the trick of buying the cheapest printer available, that is clearly way cheaper than what it costs to build. Then people get cranky for having to buy these proprietary cartridges which are way overpriced to cover the cost of the printer.

      The easiest solution is to buy a laser printer (unless you need photo finish on your prints). It’s a higher initial cost, but it never dries out. Would it cost me more that an ink printer in the long run? Maybe, but with my infrequent printing, i wouldn’t have to replace dried out cartridges every year.

      • rifugee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Anyone who buys a color laser printer should be aware that the initial cartridges, at least from HP, are not as full as refills, so you will have to replace them fairly soon and it is expensive. That being said, the refills will last a looooong time.

        Also, and the main reason why I purchased one, the printer will just work, even if you don’t print anything for a couple of weeks, or months even. I went through a couple of inkjets (not the cheapest ones), which would constantly get dried out, a head clogged, etc, before I said “fuck it,” and sprung for a laser. My wallet isn’t that happy, but it sure is nice not gambling on whether the damn printer will actually print.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I had an amazing multifunction colour laser printer. It always worked. It scanned straight to OCRd PDF which it placed on an FTP server. It was full duplex, in printing and scanning. It copied ultra-quickly. The toner was endless, or so it seemed. It was everything I needed and wanted in a printer.

          But my wife thought it was “ugly” and “too big”. It became a real sticking point, this thing. So eventually it was replaced by a shitty ink-jets so “we could print good photos at home”. Now it’s clogged up to fuck, no amount of head cleaning works and she’s complaining about the shitty quality prints.

          Stand your ground on a good printer. Stand. Your. Ground.

          • rifugee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Damn, that’s a nice printer you have had there.

            We need a law that makes it illegal for someone to cause you to lose your beloved printer, despite the way it may look. We need an anti-discrimination law to protect them because they can’t protect themselves. We can call it the Stand Your Ground Act…wait.

            • Fungah@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah. And we should be able to legally marry our printers too. I’m sick of the fact that nobody recognized my relationship with my printer even though we sleep together every night. In ever sense of that term.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Cryptocurrency in general. Even on the surface, as presented, the main appeal to buy in is “to get rich from it” and the main way you’re supposed to get rich is “other people buying in, get in early while you can.”

    Ponzi. Schemes. All of them. unlimited-power

      • ErC@lemmy.cryptoriot.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        The dollar is the favourite currency for that stuff. Cryptocurrencies are meant to take power away from banks and give it to the people. Sure, the vast majority of the people use them for spsculation, but that doesn’t make the technology useless. It’s just that people are mostly interested in making as much money as they can. That’s a society problem, not cryptocurrency’s.

    • ErC@lemmy.cryptoriot.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      The main appeal is the ability to make transactions without intermediaries. The problem is that most people have as the only interest to get richer and richer and there will be always other people happy to sell them that dream… For a fee. These are the vastmajorituy of the people in cryptocurrencies, but that doesn’t disreguard the power and utility of the technology. It’s easy to shit on the tool, but the real problem is the greed-driven society we live in.

      • neptune@dmv.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If people paid rent or bought groceries with crypto currency? Sure. It’s not like thousands of people without bank access are using coins.

        • ErC@lemmy.cryptoriot.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’ve been living on cryptocurrencies only for the last >6 years. Buying groceries, travels and whatever else i need. So yes, people do that. You don’t hear about it because people are too busy talking about speculators and price movements.

          Cryptocurrencies are seeing high adoptions in country where banking is limited, in the rich country is 99% speculation.

          • neptune@dmv.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Doesn’t the see saw of speculation kind of screw this up for you? Or do you only engage in business with other crypto people?

            • ErC@lemmy.cryptoriot.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Speculation makes it harder because it causes price volatility, which is good and bad. There are services like bitrefill, travala and coincards that make very easy to buy almostanything using crypto. Of course if somebody accepts crypto directly i prefer them.

    • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I disagree that cryptocurrency in itself is a scam. It can have legitimate utility, for example I want to exchange money for international services without a credit card or mailing an envelope of cash/cheque. Bitcoin and some others are mainstream enough that I can do this.

      That said, investing in them is absolutely a scam, using it as a marketing buzzhype is a scam, and most of them are founded as scams.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It can have legitimate utility

        Sure, sure. But does it and can it actually stay that way?

        I haven’t seen a functioning example actually out there yet of a planet-burning electricity-wasting math busywork generator that actually does anything it supposedly can do besides become another ruinous and wasteful grift that does more damage to the planet than whatever convenience it supposedly offers to comfort the comforted.

        • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          does it

          Well, my transaction went through, so yes.

          I agree that it is wasteful and overall a bad thing… now that I think about it could be somewhat excusable if they adopted a PoW algrothim that actually solves socially-useful expensive problems like protein-folding, through distributed computing.

          But that doesn’t make it a scam. There’s not really any trickery. It’s just bad.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            now that I think about it could be somewhat excusable if they adopted a PoW algrothim that actually solves socially-useful expensive problems like protein-folding, through distributed computing.

            You’re claiming that cryptogrifts can theoretically cease being environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grifts (for Science!™) and so on, so why not go one further and state that such applications theoretically DON’T need Bitcoin or related blockchain monetization at all?

            If it’s already an environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grift, and you’re claiming it can do good things while also being an environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grift, why not take the speculative fantasy a little further and lose the environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grift entirely?

            There’s not really any trickery.

            doubt

            • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’m not claiming that. It would still be environmentally ruinous (insofar as the energy production where miners live remains ruinous, which I guess is the foreseeable future) but at least the PoW would be actually contributing to tasks we wanted to do anyway that require large amounts of work. Hence the heavy emphasis on ‘somewhat’. I’m not saying it would be justified, but it would be far far far more useful to society.

              Incidentally, why characterise non-profit medical research as “for Science!™)”? I hope we can both agree that understanding the human body is valuable to society and curing disease.

              and state that such applications theoretically DON’T need Bitcoin or related blockchain monetization at all?

              There are cryptographic requirements for securely conveying the necessary information for that application, an application that requires extremely limited identity and trust and centralization. I can’t think of an alternative covering those requirements that is plausible right now and not pure what-if (there is a big jump in feasibility between ‘change the proof of work algorithm’ and ‘invent an alternative to cryptocurrency’). If we can find an alternative to expensive PoW, wonderful!

              Yes, if those requirements are relaxed, there are alternatives. If you’re fine with PayPal storing your personal and financial details and those of the recipient and exploiting you a little bit, then it’s an alternative. If your recipient is fine giving personal information, speed isn’t an option and you live in a country where sending cash in mail is legal and won’t get stolen, that’s an option. Of course, this all goes to shit if you’re trading with someone in a sanctioned country.

              There’s not really any trickery.

              (X)

              Alright, what about Bitcoin is fraudulent? We agree it’s bad, but that doesn’t make it fraudulent (i.e. a scam)

              • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                It would still be environmentally ruinous (insofar as the energy production where miners live remains ruinous, which I guess is the foreseeable future) but at least the PoW would be actually contributing to tasks we wanted to do anyway that require large amounts of work. Hence the heavy emphasis on ‘somewhat’. I’m not saying it would be justified, but it would be far far far more useful to society.

                “Less of a net negative” is still a net negative if it requires a massive and ever-growing bloated blockchain to verify every accumulating transactions for the vague and non-enforced promise of FOR SCIENCE™ benefits.

                If we can find an alternative to expensive PoW, wonderful!

                At present the alternative is not doing it because it’s still a net negative when it comes to wasted energy and environmental damage.

                Alright, what about Bitcoin is fraudulent? We agree it’s bad, but that doesn’t make it fraudulent (i.e. a scam)

                Sea lioning at this point is very bad form and I’m quite confident that you’re not going to accept any example or definition I give because you’re already sold on your particular investment, but fine.

                Let’s start with the actual fucking fraud done with it, from phishing to theft to holding data hostage and demanding payment to decrypt that data before it’s destroyed, as is a growing common “use case” for Bitcoin when it isn’t being used for human trafficking and the like. You can piously claim in some pedantic “CODE IS LAW” thing that there’s no fraud in the code itself but splitting hairs like that doesn’t remove the incentive (or the risk, or the ongoing caseload) of fraud done with, around, and even against your favorite investment vehicle.

                https://www.cryptopolitan.com/3-4-billion-penalty-in-cftc-bitcoin-fraud/

                https://www.theblock.co/post/226534/silk-road-hacker-sentenced

                https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/bitcoin-fraud-cftc/2023/04/28/id/1117850/?ns_mail_uid=8b680911-ae97-4076-9bbe-2f0447621e49&ns_mail_job=DM466889_04292023&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010102ydx2id

                • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Agreeing with the parts re: net negative. No, I don’t invest in cryptocurrency; like I said, investing in them is a scam.

                  Let’s start with the actual fucking fraud done with it

                  Fraud is done with basically anything considered to have value. Cash, credit, signatures, votes, wine, wires, mail, licenses, taxes, recorded age. Fraud is the scam! And cryptocurrency is especially useful for scamming (has the anonymity of cash without the physical restrictions). But that’s not it’s purpose or main use. That’s not spiting hairs, it’s calling the hat the head. Your example of encrypting ransomware used to be done with the postal service, floppy discs and cash in the 90s. One example from 1989

                  edit: this of course is an advantage of non-transferable labour vouchers!

                  Sea lioning

                  That’s not what sea-lioning is. Someone asked us to name some scams, you said cryptocurrency, I disagreed that it qualified as a scam, you replied that you doubted my disagreement and I asked for clarification. If either of us wants to stop, we stop. Sea-lioning is stalking across the site like a debate pervert, it’s not replying to replies.

                  I’m not just running my mouth here, I’m evaluating my understanding of cryptocurrency and finding disagreements to make me question them. And also seeing if I’m able to have a constructive conversation - it’s good practice for real labour conversations in the workplace.

      • yata@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It can have legitimate utility, for example I want to exchange money for international services without a credit card or mailing an envelope of cash/cheque.

        It does it infinitely more inefficient, slower and insecure than all other existing alternatives that can do this (and there are a lot of alternatives which doesn’t involve blockchain). Which is also why people doesn’t use it for this.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        I was into Bitcoin before it even had value. Cryptocurrency is a cool concept and not a scam by default, but it was never meant to be some mainstream thing that was going to replace the dollar as you hear parroted annoyingly everywhere.

        When non tech people started getting interested is when the scams started (also didn’t help that governments were lending money at 0% interest rates for like the last two decades)…

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Drug dealers also like getting paid in crypto, but they never hold on to it. The few that use it like a currency are ok, but the vast majority use it like a commodity.

      • Dalimey@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Back in the early days (early 2010s was when I first heard of it) when Bitcoin was worth pennies on the dollar that was exactly the kind of thing it was good for, and it was marketed as an international currency not beholden to governments. It is a shame that it got taken from that for the sake of “Bitcoin being valuable because you can profit off owning Bitcoin.”

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Its best use cases are only circumstantial and in every case it wastes a lot of electricity, jacks up the price of video cards, and dumps a lot of extra carbon into the atmosphere. It’s like a shitty planet-burning Rube Goldberg machine.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        But it’s technically not a scam in a pedantic way at the coding level so any scams done with it don’t really count and scientific research can totally be done with blockchain and if you ignore the wasted electricity and carbon disaster that cumulatively builds higher and higher with the way blockchain technology actually works because of every individual computer needing to verify proofs with every other computer it is actually not a scam and can do good things and I am sharping the katana of my wit because I can claim that I can not condoning cryptocurrency except I am in a contrarian way morshupls

  • alokir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Credit scores are a scam to sell credit cards.

    You take small loans each month via a credit card that you have to pay back. This increases an imaginary number that lets you take out bigger loans in the furure.

    This is all tracked by private companies that you trust with your personal data. That, or you’ll not be able to take out a loan if you want to buy a house or start a business.

    If you have a good credit score it means that you don’t overspend or forget to pay, which you can also achieve with a regular debit card by default. This doesn’t serve people, only the banks who expect that a number of people will overspend or not be able to pay their loans back.

    Credit cards alone aren’t the problem. Forcing them on people with the credit score system is.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Coming from a civilized country where the credit score is calculated by looking at income, taxes and property, I cannot fathom how the US credit score calculation is supported by anyone.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        A lot of people actually like it because it really doesn’t work the way OP said it did. They are partially correct, but you also get rewarded for perverse incentives. If you double pay your CC, it will actually slightly lower your credit score. If you have a lot of credit cards with no balance, that can also lower your score. The quickest way to buildup credit in the US is to get a card that has a 0% 18 Month introductory interest rate. Pay the minimum balance each month, and save the cash to pay it all off in 17 months. You will accumulate credit like crazy, holding a balance strangely increases your credit (until the balance gets too high or you start missing payments, then it will take a nosedive).

        Interest, late fees, holding a balance, a lot of the bad stuff is actually weirdly good for your credit in the US. I mean it makes sense… they want to reward people who are stupid and pay interest, but actually have enough income to keep making payments forever.

        When someone from the US remarks about their credit score, it always causes me to raise eyebrows. You can be poor and have a high credit score, it’s incredibly common.

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      One way to make credit scores more consumer friendly would be to make it totally transparent what data is collected, retained and transmitted when calculating the score. If you want to open a new line of credit, instead of having businesses look up all this shit behind your back you’d request a letter of credit and provide it to the business yourself, knowing exactly what is in it.

      But no, instead it’s a total mystery how it is calculated and you just have to hope that they don’t get confused and make a mistake because it can wreck your life if they do.

      • alokir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        In many countries, mine included, there’s no credit score system. We recently took out a bigger loan to buy a house and what we had to provide was:

        • proof of a steady income (in our case from our employer)
        • 3 months of bank account history (to prove that we don’t overspend)
        • written permission that they can request our data from the central (government operated) loan database

        That’s it. From these they could tell that we are safe to loan money to because we’ll most likely be able to pay it back.

        I don’t see how a credit score system is essential when you can provide them with the necessary data only when it’s needed.

    • Limit@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      You can “game the system” by picking credit cards that offer some kind of cash back incentive, and don’t carry balances month to month. For example the chase freedom card does 1% on all purchases and 5% on specific categories that change every quarter. I’ve had this card for like 9 years, I’ve never paid any interest because I pay it off monthly , and we make lots of “free” cash back. The key here is don’t go get a credit card and buy stuff you can’t afford, that should be hammered into youth from the beginning, just buy what you can afford, and if you’re disciplined enough you can put all of your purchases on the card and benefit from the card incentives for basically free.

      • argues_semantics@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I can’t agree with this more.

        Transferring points earned to airlines can also net you some incredible deals on flights as well. I’ve booked several tens of thousands of dollars on business/first class travel over the years at a fraction of the cost. With the addition of free hotel upgrades and car rental upgrades, you can use credit cards to your advantage.

        The caveat is that it takes some amount of expendable income to play.

    • galloog1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      In a society with capitalism at its core, externalities exist. That’s a fact that everyone agrees with. Nonprofits help mitigate those gaps. Calling all nonprofits scams is misguided at best. I think OP is looking for something more specific. What nonprofits?

        • atlasraven31@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek but specifically the Roman Catholic Church in a historic context.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      There are a lot who have an extremely positive impact. It’s a small minority that causes a huge number of issues.

      I personally help out with a non profit charity and we get a lot done with not a lot financially. The reduced taxes are a huge help.

      • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        There are a lot who have an extremely positive impact. It’s a small minority that causes a huge number of issues.

        I would argue it’s the other way around frankly

    • jamkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      To be fair, there are some good ones out there. I worked for a drug-rehab company in the 90s as the IT head that got mostly government funding for a 6 month-rehab-program for non-violent drug offenders (mostly stuff like heroine, cocaine, etc.). We also had an in-prison program but I don’t think that was as effective. Of course to get government contact money we would have to meet lots of strict guidelines too.

      I definitely more wary of ones that don’t get any public funding and therefore have practically no guardrails and less forced transparency.