Mediaboss Marketing

We all see it, right? Cryptocurrency is having a moment again.

It last had a mainstream moment in late 2017, followed by the infamous crash in 2018. But that was, in hindsight, mostly mania and hype.

This time looks different, and dare I say more mature and more enduring. This time it's Joe Main Street and Wall Street buying in. The current run has been driven by institutions, but not just investment firms. Square, MicroStrategy, and Tesla loaded up. Notable hedge fund heads changed their public tune on crypto.

But Bitcoin hasn't changed. The perceptions merely changed, as former skeptics decided it's time to reexamine crypto. The narratives changed, and crypto is an industry driven by narratives. (Remember when big banks were all talking up "blockchain without Bitcoin?") The pandemic created a perfect storm for crypto adoption, as bullish narratives converged with a retail investor revolution.

And people have a lot of questions. Is Bitcoin really a form of currency, or merely digital gold? Is crypto mining bad for the environment? What's the deal with these wild auction prices for digital collectibles (NFTs)?

Decrypt is here to answer all your questions. We are here for people at every level of crypto understanding, whether you're starting from zero (see: What is crypto?) or you're deep down the rabbit hole of DeFi investing, yield farming, and staking.

We cover daily crypto news for the folks that live and breathe this stuff (and lately, there's a flood of daily news, from Tether and Bitfinex settling in New York to Coinbase preparing to go public); we answer specific questions we keep hearing from newbies (Why does Coinbase have 3 different apps?); and we present handy explainers in our excellent Learn section.

I first wrote about Bitcoin in 2011 at Fortune. Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) and Joe Manchin (VA) had written a letter of concern to then-Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to look into Bitcoin after Gawker (R.I.P.) ran an expos on Silk Road, which used Bitcoin as its form of payment.

Since then, regulation has become a buzzy topic in the crypto industry, but has developed at a snail's paceas regulation does. Multiple government agencies, including the SEC, CFTC, and IRS, all appear to want some jurisdiction over crypto regulation. There's also a fascinating push-and-pull between the Wall Street types who welcome more regulation, and the original Bitcoin true believers who were attracted to the space specifically because it wasn't regulated and was outside of government reach.

And since then, media coverage of crypto has evolved. Legacy media outlets have assigned more reporters to the crypto beat, new crypto news outlets have launched, and existing crypto news outlets are staffing up.

But the crypto news space has two pervasive problems: too many of the articles are written in an insidery, jargon-filled tone aimed at those who are already experts; and too many writers in the space are shills for the coins they cover.

We aim to be your go-to place for clear-eyed, discerning coverage of crypto: the good, the bad, and the baffling.

Decrypt made some hiring moves in February. I joined as its new Editor-in-Chief, after a decade of covering crypto and sports business at Fortune and then Yahoo Finance. (Fun fact: I collaborated with Decrypt on an investigative story about the SEC's quiet crackdown on ICOs back in 2018, not knowing I'd come join the site three years later.) Jeff John Roberts (no relation!), formerly of Fortune and GigaOm before that, joined as our Executive Editor; his recently published book about Coinbase, Kings of Crypto,makes him the leading expert on the red-hot company. (If you ask Jeff, Coinbase is the next Facebook. Really.) Alanna Roazzi-Laforet, a former Cond Nast digital sales exec, became our publisher. Matt Hussey, another co-founder and our former Editor-in-Chief, is now heading up the sales side. We join the existing excellent Decrypt team.

To call out just a few of Decrypt's recent engaging features: read Adriana Hamacher on what happened when a digital artist made $900,000 from buyers who thought they were buying Banksy pieces; Scott Chipolina on the man who put up Bitcoin billboards in every U.S. city with a Federal Reserve Bank; Tim Copeland's nuanced analysis of Elon Musk's public journey toward Bitcoin understanding; and Jeff Benson's examination of Janet Yellen's (bearish) comments about Bitcoin.

We're bringing on big guests: see our extensive new video interview with Mark Cuban, who talks DeFi and his obsession with NFTs; listen to NBA star Spencer Dinwiddie on our Decrypt Daily podcast; and read our interview with Miami Mayor Francisco Suarez, who told us he's planning to personally buy some coins. We've got more big interviews to come.

We're also actively participating in the industry we cover with our reader token, which rewards you for reading and learning with Decrypt. The token has been in an invite-only beta, but will very soon open to the pubic for our first "season," sponsored by Filecoin. Just download our beautiful mobile app. It's our hope that we can help spur the advent of Web3, when tokenization reduces the friction of paying for digital news content. And make sure you subscribe to our daily email newsletter.

To the 4.6 million people who came to Decrypt in February: Thank you, and buckle up, because it's all likely to get even crazier. And to all the newly curious: Welcome to crypto.

Read more:
Letter From The Editor: Welcome to Crypto - Decrypt

We cannot bring back the loved ones killed by vigilantism disguised as self-defense under the purview of Floridas stand your ground law. But 16 years later, we can at least restore the duty to retreat when a person can safely withdraw from a threat. And yet, state Sen. Shevrin Jones Self-Defense Restoration Act (SB 1052) faces an uphill battle, given the prevalence of a misbegotten belief in a shoot first, ask questions later method of dispute resolution.

When I published Stand Your Ground: A History of Americas Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense in 2017, I naively believed that the laws that originated in Florida would get dismantled by legislators and outraged citizens, exhausted by the carnage that the laws encourage. But since 2005, 36 other states have passed stand your ground laws they continue to spread across the nation, a pandemic of weaponized self-defense.

As John Roman of the Urban Institute explained, stand your ground was a classic solution in search of a problem. The existing laws, including the castle doctrine and laws governing self-defensive force, already allowed people to protect themselves and their homes, and they allowed non-aggressors to fight back when threatened in public spaces.

Stand your ground proponents have argued that women need the law in order to defend themselves from dangerous perpetrators and rapists. They have asserted that existing laws would force women to retreat from aggressors, thus putting themselves in additional danger by turning their backs on potentially armed, larger male strangers.

But in focusing on the threats of strangers, they ignored a vital fact. By far, womens greatest statistical threat continues to be men they know, usually their own intimate partners and exes. As the case of Marissa Alexander, who spent years in prison after firing a warning shot at her husband, made tragically clear, stand your ground laws were not designed to provide legal immunity to women defending themselves from violent intimate partners and exes.

The accumulating archive of cases of woman imprisoned for surviving an assault testify to the historic backdrop of our cultures underacknowledged patriarchal and white supremacist suspicion of women, especially Black, brown and indigenous women, who resist partner violence. As in Alexanders case, such defendants are often portrayed as angry rather than fearful.

In addition to betraying any semblance of gender equity in rules of justifiable force, stand your ground laws amplify gun homicide rates. The implementation of Floridas stand your ground law was associated with a 24 percent increase in monthly homicide rates and a 32 percent increase in monthly firearm homicide rates. The states stand your ground law is also associated with a 45 percent increase in quarterly rates of adolescent gun homicide, driven by a 52 percent increase in the gun homicide rate among Black adolescents.

While these data alone are shocking, what they dont reveal are the manifold ways in which stand your ground laws invite and reward violence when the aggressor claims to have been acting in self-defense, especially if the only other witness is dead. We have watched as predominantly white aggressors use excessive force against unarmed, usually non-white men or boys, and then appeal for legal immunity. When armed assailants claim to have been victims of an attack and/or to have been in fear for their lives, they are often granted the benefit of the doubt. Those judging the reasonableness of this claim including law enforcement, judges, lawyers and juries must weigh the defendants claim of fear against the perception of threat that the deceased person may have posed.

Floridas stand your ground law places the burden of proof on the prosecution to show that the defendant was not acting in self-defense, which also stacks the deck against justice in cases of wrongful violence. As the case of D.J. Broadus a 31-year-old Black man killed by his white, male (ex)lover reveals, its hard to disprove a defendants claim of self-defense when the only other witness is dead. The law provides layers of legal immunity so that an aggressors claims of self-defense cannot be questioned, effectively reversing the roles of victim and perpetrator.

While the Self-Defense Restoration Act sponsored by Jones, a West Park Democrat, will not bring back those whose lives were unnecessarily taken in the past 15 years, it will revise the law to reinstate a duty to retreat outside ones home. This does not mean that law-abiding people will be required to try to run away from violent criminals who may pursue them.

Rather, it means that people will be expected to resist a threat with reasonable and commensurate force if they are unable to retreat. It means that someone who kills another person in legitimate self-defense will need to justify their actions in a court of law, as should be the case when a human life is taken. It means the re-instatement of law and order, and above all public safety, in a state that has already seen too much unnecessary violence and destruction over the past decade and a half.

Caroline Light teaches gender and ethnic studies at Harvard University. She is the author of stand your ground: A History of Americas Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense. Follow her at @carolineelight. She wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.

Continued here:
Instead of standing your ground, retreat when possible | Column - Tampa Bay Times

PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) State senators must decide in the coming days whether South Dakotas 19th-century laws permitting people to use of force in self-defense are clear or should be made stronger.

The state House of Representatives voted 61-7 Thursday night for HB 1212 to strengthen them. Every Republican in the chamber backed the legislation, while every Democrat there opposed it.

The legislation is patterned after Florida law, according to sponsor Kevin Jensen. He said its not really a stand your ground measure. The six-page bill however uses the specific phrase has the right to stand his or her ground in several places.

If you look at the bill carefully, this is not a gun bill. The word gun, firearm, pistol doesnt even exist in the bill. Why? Because self-defense can be with anything. You can defend yourself with a knife, a baseball bat, a tire iron, and your fists, when it comes down to this use of force, and thats what the whole thing was about, was clarifying use of force, Jensen said.

He added, We have certain rights as individuals. We have to be able to defend ourselves up to and equal to the force being displayed against us. He said a photograph of a Missouri couple showed the difference between legally displaying a weapon, as the man held his AR-15 at his side, or the illegal act of brandishing a weapon, which the woman did as she pointed hers in the direction of protesters.

The legislation would rewrite the laws and delete archaic references to servants and mistresses. Jensen said it also would expand the definition of a dwelling to cover any portion of a persons home including an attached garage.

South Dakotas self-defense laws currently say there is no duty to retreat. No duty to retreat means stand your ground, Jensen said.

The common perception is people should shoot once theyve pulled their gun in self-defense, he said. What this bill does is take us to that middle ground and defines it, so that if you use excessive force, you are going to be arrested, but if you use equal-to force to end the situation, thats allowable by law, but that gray area is the difference between showing a weapon to defray a situation or actually having to use it. And this clarifies that.

South Dakota law allows any person whos not a criminal to carry a concealed firearm. Democrat leader Jamie Smith said Jensens legislation would make South Dakota a more dangerous place because many people who carry concealed weapons havent received training in the law.

I have been told this isnt a stand-your-ground law but the words are right there, and it does imply its a stand-your-ground law. That law may have been worked on by you for a long time getting that Florida law to fit with South Dakota law but it was invented in Florida. They put these in in in 2005. And so the stand-your-ground laws actually give people license to kill, Smith said.

It allows those who shoot others to obtain immunity, even if they started the confrontation themselves and it could have been de-escalated without the gun. Studies have been done to show the efforts of the Florida law and the studies are not good, Smith said, citing various negative statistics. Im not convinced this law solves a problem. I also think it could lead to increased homicide rates here in the state of South Dakota, and unfortunately I dont want to provide safe harbor as an unintended consequence.

Drew Dennert responded with statistics that he said showed the numbers of murders in Florida rose during the past 15 years roughly proportionate to the populations increase while violent crimes per 100,000 people dropped roughly by half.

John Wiik is lead sponsor in the Senate. The National Rifle Association promotes stand your ground legislation. Brian Gosch, the former House Republican leader and House speaker, is a registered NRA lobbyist for South Dakota. The first bill that Governor Kristi Noem signed in 2019 was NRA-backed legislation lifting South Dakotas requirement of a state permit for concealed carry of firearms.

At the stand-your-ground bills House committee hearing Wednesday, Jensen was the only one to speak for it, while the organization representing South Dakotas county prosecutors went on record opposing one section. Several women from Sioux Falls, Brandon and Rapid City spoke against the overall concept.

More than 20 states have versions of a stand your ground law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A national analysis concluded stand-your-ground laws are intended to reduce barriers for self-defense with the aim of further deterring criminal victimization.

This bill is nothing new, Jensen said, citing his law enforcement certification since 1983 and his status as an NRA-certified pistol instructor for 15 years. He said more than 2,000 people have come through his class.

The five different statutes now in law in South Dakota have been in place since before 1900, Jensen said. Our current laws are very confusing, vague and dont really justify certain actions by people. Law enforcement currently decides whether a persons display of a weapon was offensive, which is illegal, or defensive, which is legal.

Unfortunately in South Dakota we have just not made it clear yet, Jensen said. The court should be the one to decide that. In law we dont really address it properly. He said the state attorney generals office reviewed the legislation and was neutral, as was the sheriffs association. The governors office didnt get back to him, he said.

Paul Bachand, representing the South Dakota States Attorneys Association, objected to the legislations granting the person at the scene the right to claim the violent action was justified in countering the attack. He said a judge wouldnt be present when the act occurred.

Jensen said the language was part of the Florida law. If thats the only objection they have, I feel pretty confident we wrote a solid bill, Jensen said.

The House State Affairs Committee voted 10-1 along Republican/Democrat lines for approval. The sentences that drew the county prosecutors opposition were removed on the House floor. It wasnt that important, Jensen said.

Ryan Cwach argued that drunken people who walked into the wrong apartments would get shot. Jensen said the shooters probably would be arrested and have to make their defense in a courtroom. You dont just get to shoot for free, Jensen said. Im sorry, thats not how the real world works, youre still probably going to be charged, youre going to be arrested.

Shootings have been reduced in Florida since passage of the stand-your-ground laws, Jensen said. Theres no doubt about that. Thats a fact.

Original post:
Bill would add South Dakota to two dozen states that have stand your ground self-defense laws - KELOLAND.com

Stores such as Academy Sports in Tallahassee allow the purchasing of guns in Florida. Photo by Paulette Jordan

The Florida Senate has introduced a bill, SB 1052, which is titled the Self Defense Restoration Act. This will delete provisions in the controversial Stand Your Ground law relating to people using or threatening to use force if they feel threatened or in defense of people or their property.

The bill was first filed on Feb. 4 and was referred to theJudiciaryCommittee on Feb. 10.

These laws just were passed sort of methodically, particularly in red states, state by state by state, over the course of about 10 years, said Democrat Rep. Robyn Thomas.

SB 1052 bill would essentially Stand YourGround, which gives a person the right to use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against danger. The law was used in the Trayvon Martin case. In 2012, George Zimmerman, awhite neighborhood watch volunteer with a history of frequent 911 calls, called and reported spotting Martin , a Black teenager, as a suspicious person in his Sanford subdivision. Zimmerman ignored police instructions and confronted Martin before fatally shooting Martin. Zimmerman pleaded not guilty and used Stand Your Ground as his excuse.

We know for a fact that Stand Your Ground promotes vigilantism, it allows people to shoot first and ask questions later, Shevrin Jones, a Democratic senator from Broward County and a FAMU alum, said. More important, it puts Black people and other people of color at a greater risk of gun violence.

FloridasStand Your Ground policy wassigned into law in 2005by Republican Gov. Jeb Bush. Despite being a very controversial law in Florida,Stand Your Ground has been adopted by many U.S. states. Since the law has been passed many Florida law enforcement officials have complained of the laws overuse due to gang members using itas protection.

In states with Stand Your Ground laws, an analysis of FBI data found when the gunman is white and the victim is Black, homicides are five times more likely to be deemed justified than when the situation is reversed. After Florida passed the first Stand Your Ground law in 2005, Robin Thomas with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence says many other states followed suit, largely because of intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association, said Greg Allen of National Public Radio.

The National Rifle Association, an influential gun advocacy group, was a strong backer of the bill, and Governor Bush said to retreat and put yourself in a very precarious position defies common sense.

Read the original post:
Senate bill aims to repeal Stand Your Grand law - Famuan

Jordan Peterson. (Photo by Chris Williamson/Getty Images)

Its genuinely tragic what happened to Jordan Peterson.

The Canadian psychology professor first rose to fame by railing against the liberal obsession with identity that shaped the culture wars of 2016, and subsequently became so polarizing (and popular) that his self-help book, 12 Rules For Life, sold over three million copies worldwide.

Peterson offered solid advice for angry, isolated young men; he promoted the idea of personal responsibility, discipline and self-confidence. The problem was that his positive messaging was often accompanied by his other beliefs, some of which were simply old-fashioned conservative ideals, repackaged, and some were really quite strange. Harmful, even.

Despite marketing himself as an intellectual who wasnt afraid to ask tough questions, Peterson would often blurt out seriously unscientific and outlandish claims, most famously, his strange fixation on lobsters, and the supposed similarity between crustaceans and humankind, which he used to justify the existence of unjust hierarchies.

Its a bit like pointing to a bee hive, and claiming that the insect's success makes a compelling argument to restore the monarchy.

Eventually, Peterson started to hang out with race realist Stefan Molyneux (so much for rejecting identity politics) and began to promote his daughters eye-wateringly stupid diet, which consists solely of beef, salt and water (sounds like a great way to develop scurvy).

Months into his all-beef diet, Peterson claimed that ingesting any substance other than beef would cause him serious psychological and physical harm; he even claimed that a single glass of apple cider caused him to stay awake for a full month, and filled him with an overwhelming sense of impending doom (Im not kidding).

Peterson ended up becoming addicted to anti-anxiety medication after personal tragedy struck, and suffered all sorts of horrendous health complications - its still not clear if he ever really recovered.

Now, Peterson is back, and he is about to release another self-help book, titled, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life. Which seems incredibly hypocritical, considering his big rule, one that he consistently touted while public speaking, which reads:

"Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world."

This rule always bothered me, a lot. Its the kind of thing that sounds innocuous on the surface - after all, whats wrong with practicing what you preach? Surely, there are plenty of obnoxious activists who could use that advice.

But the way Peterson promoted this rule wasnt meant to encourage - he was essentially telling activists to be quiet, to accept the worlds structural injustices, because they were imperfect and didnt clean their rooms, or whatever.

That rule functions as a cudgel, to crush the idealism of young people. And its a rule that has no basis in reality - historical heroes like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. had plenty of personal problems too.

And so, quite frankly, does Peterson.

Ironically, having a messy personal life doesnt mean that Petersons emphasis on personal improvement, on finding meaning through responsibility, isnt worth listening to. That is undeniably good advice.

But the notion that only those with neat and tidy personal lives are allowed to criticize the world, is dangerous nonsense.

Just like the idea of a human living solely on beef, salt, and water.

The rest is here:
How Jordan Peterson Broke His Most Important Rule (For Life)