It uses the same tone that SBF uses when characterizing the situation as a complicate mixup instead of what it really is, deliberate fraud using customer funds to increase leverage.
> It uses the same tone that SBF uses when characterizing the situation as a complicate mixup instead of what it really is, deliberate fraud using customer funds to increase leverage.
That's because describing it as "deliberate fraud" would require evidence of intent that they don't have. I agree that it's likely the case, but I wouldn't expect a journalist to state it as fact at this point.
FTX firm headed by SBF collapses after failing to process user withdrawals. Mismanaged funds and risky trades are to blame. Victims and prominent figures within the crytposphere allege fraud.
Funny how when it comes to most stories, "Business is killing babies... says person (random person on twitter)" is good enough.
Listen, people want their opinions validated. Mix that with a weak understanding of libel laws and certain people with potentially libelous opinions will feel like their voice isn’t heard in mainstream media.
It’s kind of how we got one of our recent presidents…
So you don't think you can present the same 2 sets of facts with different tone/connotation and achieve drastically different outcomes in public opinion?
They ask about the real estate purchases, they ask about the transfers, they ask about conflicts of interest and criminal liability. How can a live unedited interview with those questions be a puff piece?
Except that only a moron would ask those questions in a vacuum like Sorkin did without a single follow up. He didn't challenge a single one of his answers when there is so much evidence against the lies he spewed. It's really not that hard to understand, but sure go ahead deny this was anything but grade-A journalism, if you're a NYT fanboy you'll find a way.
It's as if SBF lawyers handed NYT a list of questions to ask and nothing more.
I don't think this is a correct representation of the interview. Sorkin starts by reading a letter from an FTX customer that directly accuses SBF of stealing. The next 30 or so minutes are repeated follow ups on commingling of assets between Alameda + FTX, and Sorkin highlights past statements SBF made that seem to contradict with current reality. Sorkin even has this:
SORKIN: I think the question is whether you supposed to have access to these accounts to begin with. If I worked at a bank and was a bank teller and I decided to leave the bank at the end of the evening and take the cash that I ostensibly had access to, even if I intended to bring it back to the bank later or with even more money to give them back — I still stole that money.
And of course there can't be a mind virus around the mind virus that he heavily donated to democrats on the part of idiot republicans and that only a free-minded savant on HN would know that he also donated to republicans.
People are angry and they aren't seeing the immediate consequences they want. It's not just an SBF thing though, I suspect that various police dramas have given people a very skewed view.
You’re right, but the political angle reinforces this. Note the posting history of the people who’ve been most consistently performing outrage about this — they’re pretty reliably cued by whatever the right-wing media is currently pushing, and right now that’s emphasizing his donations to Democrats and the idea that he bought leniency. I’m sure the emotion is genuine but it’s being stoked by a party eager to go back on the attack after the scandal-plagued Trump years.
There's a lot of outrage performers invested in crypto who want to make this about _anything besides crypto_.
So instead of people taking a close look at the crypto space and saying "wait, maybe a lot of these other projects are flawed", their anger gets focused on the press and the regulators. It's pretty ridiculous when you think about it -- is the NYTimes really responsible for FTX because the tone of their pieces wasn't sufficiently harsh? I'm skeptical.
Yes — I'd especially want people to point to their own past warnings about projects before they failed. The kind of stuff coming out about FTX means basically anyone who worked there could have blown the whistle but did not, and I'd be shocked if other people in the field didn't have some idea that things were not as solid as advertised.
