> I wonder how many of these are false flag operations.

If I may ask, could you elaborate on what you mean?

wjnc a day ago | parent | next [-]

Capture a market. Become big enough to jump hurdles XYZ due to scale and amount of, say, lawyers and compliance officers you can field. Then push for more compliance. It’s effectively a moat and one of the most durable kind since lawmakers aren’t very agile. It also opens a second front (first front being: product) to go up against newcomers. Kindly point out to the regulatory agencies that they are not compliant and demand enforcement due to “equal playing field”.

To make this point concrete: KYC in banks in Europe is on a scale of 1000s FTE per bank. No newcomer can ever comply with KYC the way big banks have implemented this by pure meat. Trouble ensue for all newcomer. That’s a moat!

▲

sscaryterry a day ago | parent | prev [-]

See the second sentence.

▲

no-name-here 21 hours ago | parent [-]

The idea being that the employee(s) quit in order to run the false flag? Are their other historical examples of employees quitting to run false flags?

▲

sscaryterry 21 hours ago | parent [-]

I questioned how many of these articles around the HuggingFace incident are false flag operations.

This specific scenario, I can think of a few ways to accomplish this:

- the person isn't a real person. - the person is using a different, fake name. - the employee is paid to quit, change their name, rejoin later on. details sealed in an agreement. - add other options.

	▲	no-name-here 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is there any evidence to indicate that is true? Or does the evidence we have indicate the opposite? For example - "the person isn't a real person" - is the argument that Jacob Coxon is a made-up person? Or which of these incidents do you believe this occurred with? Or would you say the evidence shows the opposite of what you claimed?