Several people seem to be concerned that the current policy will be too disruptive/constraining. How about I make this modification to loosen it a bit: you can direct people to mixers by name (even in something like a "top 10 mixers" topic), as long as:
- You don't directly post their URLs.
- It's not a paid ad, and you're not representing a mixer.
Would this be sufficient to address the concerns?
It can hardly look not strange anyway. Different government agencies of different countries say that mixing bitcoins is not illegal per se and they have problems with some exact mixers, we suppose that it is not anything bad per se. So it looks like we are saying that it is okay to use mixers, it is not illegal, but it is forbidden to talk about it on the forum and you will be banned for something not illegal and not bad. I don't know how to make it look not strange.
And partial restrictions look even stranger. Because to find that boundaries we should see what is exactly wrong. Because if all vegetables discussion is banned on the forum it is still strange, but at least consistent. And when it is okay to say that vegetables are healthy food, but I can not say you how to get some for you because it could lead to a ban, it looks much stranger.
We know that banks and investment funds go bankrupt and have problems with authorities on a regular base. Ponzi schemes of
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities,
Chara bank and in
Toronto-Dominion Bank, money laundering in
JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York Mellon, etc. So staying consistent should we ban discussion about banks and investment funds keeping in mind that they can face with problems with authorities in the future? Banking and investment in not illegal per se, but all that can be used by criminals. And I named some organisations which had some problems with authorities (I didn't link any of their sites, but I could). So how to find correct boundaries?