[fastball]

Might be worth noting that Amy Castor seems to have a pretty strong anti-crypto bias in general, though that of course doesn't necessarily mean what she has written here is counter-factual, but she does seem to have an agenda.

[joosters]

What are you suggesting, that we should ignore facts if they are highlighted by people whose views you don't like? Or that Amy is untrustworthy and lying? If that's the case, please point to some lies that she has told?

[fastball]

You can mislead people without using untruths, that is my main concern.

I generally prefer to consume content that isn't created by someone with a clear agenda pertaining to the topic at hand, because it's not so simple to separate fact from fiction, as you seem to want to believe.

[user-the-name]

I wouldn't call being against fraud "having an agenda" as much as "being a decent human being".

[fastball]

I would agree with you, but then I didn't say she was "against fraud". I said she was anti-crypto. Sure if you think all crypto is fraud then fair enough, but that's a pretty bold claim (and verifiably untrue).

[user-the-name]

As a first-order approximation, "all crypto is fraud" serves you very, very well.

Sometimes it's possible that it might not be fraud, but might instead be that you just lost your money because someone was incompetent instead. But then it's hard to tell when they are just lying about being incompetent to cover up the fraud.

[fastball]

The first widespread use of Bitcoin was not for fraud, so as an approximation it seems pretty poor.

[user-the-name]

You mean, buying drugs?

[fastball]

Yes. Using Bitcoin to buy drugs from other people is not fraud. It's transactional.

[acdha]

She’s a journalist - that job is supposed to involve critical thinking, not regurgitating press releases. If your criticism is that she’s factually correct but not fawning it sounds like she’s doing her job well.

[fastball]

The problem is that I don't know whether or not she's factually correct in this case, that's kinda the issue with journalism. I can't just check some central database of reality to know if what she is saying is straight up true and accurate or completely false or somewhere in between. Even if you could do that, "facts" can be easily presented in a way that is misleading, as I'm sure you are aware.

What I have seen is that she has a clear anti-crypto agenda (not just "anti-fraud" as she claims, unless you define all crypto as fraud, in which case sure). So since I don't know the facts myself, I am more skeptical of the narrative she presents than I otherwise would be given her personal bias. Is that not reasonable?

[acdha]

If you are so bothered by her work, do your homework and critically examine it before posting. You would either find that your dislike is emotion not based in fact or you’d find real problems which you could point to — that’d be far more effective at convincing people.

[fastball]

I actually have seen real problems from her on Twitter and had a look, but her timeline is a bit of a mess and unfortunately I do not have the time at the moment to dig through 20k tweets.

I used to follow her on Twitter because I appreciated a critical voice about all the crypto shenanigans. But at some point I realized the stance was less "pro-truth" and more "anti-crypto", so I unfollowed for that reason. Actually reminds me of my own stance on Julian Assange – liked him when I thought he stood for truth, stopped when I realized it was less "pro-truth" and more "anti-America".

To my mind, being a journalist isn't about stating facts, it's about presenting an accurate picture of reality. You can state facts all day, but if you're cherry-picking them to paint a particular picture, I'm not a fan.