[eps]

> Why should journalism engage in the implied pro-active censorship here?

Because in this particular case it endangers subject's life.

[thinkharderdev]

> Because in this particular case it endangers subject's life.

This seems like a stretch. Mr Back is already a well-known wealthy person who (presumably) owns lots of crypto. I think it's a stretch to think this article significantly increase the danger to his life.

[khalic]

Lol you guys are really in a cult aren’t you? You’re implying that journalists should never out people that are too wealthy? Do you not see the massive red flag here?

[rationalist]

I'm not reading your suggested implication at all in the other person's comment.

[khalic]

It’s the logical conclusion to his statement, why should Satoshi be treated differently, given more privacy rights, only because he’s a billionaire? Or do you think that making an exception for him is the logical choice here?

[rationalist]

No, it's not the logical conclusion of that statement.

You're assuming and extrapolating.

"this particular case" ≠ "never"

[khalic]

Which I addressed with the last sentence, if you think someone dose es special treatment, it’s even worse. What makes him special? That he’s rich?

[rationalist]

("dose es" typo of "deserves"?)

I don't have anything to add that isn't already argued in other comments in this thread. I'm just pointing out that your opinions are not logical derivations.