Even if article appears neutral, just reading the list of the rules shows the political views of the author.
"I pay a known enemy of state to fund a terrorist attack on citizens of your country." seems a bit extreme and movie-plot-y. How about something closer to home?
- "File-encryption malware receives untraceable payments from the victims"
- "Naive investors lose their life savings to scam. There is no way to recover funds"
- "An organization gets hacked, all of their money disappear"
Another thing is it's not all about "I", there is also second-order effect. For example, the malware attacks are on the rise precisely _because_ there is an untraceable payment method. So the first-order effect of theoretical crypto ban would be that victims cannot pay and recover their data (bad). But the second-order effect would be that there are much fewer malware attacks (good).
Totally agree its a bit movie-plot-y, but the point of that example is to highlight something that (obviously) violates sanctions rules and would get flagged on a national security scale by governments.
The examples you listed would all be lower priority.
Even if article appears neutral, just reading the list of the rules shows the political views of the author.
"I pay a known enemy of state to fund a terrorist attack on citizens of your country." seems a bit extreme and movie-plot-y. How about something closer to home?
- "File-encryption malware receives untraceable payments from the victims"
- "Naive investors lose their life savings to scam. There is no way to recover funds"
- "An organization gets hacked, all of their money disappear"
Another thing is it's not all about "I", there is also second-order effect. For example, the malware attacks are on the rise precisely _because_ there is an untraceable payment method. So the first-order effect of theoretical crypto ban would be that victims cannot pay and recover their data (bad). But the second-order effect would be that there are much fewer malware attacks (good).
Totally agree its a bit movie-plot-y, but the point of that example is to highlight something that (obviously) violates sanctions rules and would get flagged on a national security scale by governments.
The examples you listed would all be lower priority.