No, this is very good news, because it reveals the essential equivalency between privacy-for-speech & privacy-for-commerce.

Personal privacy for commerce is great, but for money laundering I'd compare that to paying for political influence in the way that it mixes up speech and money in a bad way.

And yet, both kinds of privacy depend on the same freedom-of-technology. If you give up your privacy-of-commerce based on fears of 'money laundering', your privacy-for-speech is probably already dead.

100% agree with you here! Privacy is privacy, it doesn't matter what the activity is. Most money today is just digital information, no different than that text message being sent. It seems impossible to allow complete privacy when sending one type of digital information but not another.

I could send someone the recovery keys for a bitcoin wallet and launder money via any messaging service. If we need to regulate that then privacy goes out the window, you'd have to know what the content of my message was to know if it was allowed.

I agree with all of that.

But I consider that bundling to be a bad thing.

And I wish large-scale money laundering was easier to deal with in a privacy-preserving way.

I consider entropy a troublesome thing. I wish it could be reversed. But, the universe is how it is. Privacy is general-purpose, and the things you can do with it resistant to unbundling.

Yes.

And because privacy-for-commerce is morally wrong for almost all definitions of morality, then I guess privacy-for-speech is also morally wrong.

I totally support your right to live in a surveillance police state of your own choosing – far from people who prefer privacy & freedom.