[base698]

You've entirely missed the point. News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. Business shows focus on day to day movement instead of broad sweeping trends that are game changers.

The medium is partly the problem.

[tokenadult]

News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable.

I think you've missed the point of my comment, which is that I actively disregard sources that have that defect, and look for sources that tell me about verified, actionable information. (I have been wondering about the pattern of upvotes and downvotes on my comment, and if this is what people think I am saying, that I like the sensational, they are badly misreading my comment.)

[MoosePlissken]

I think there's some misunderstanding over the meaning of the word "news" here. The author of the article uses the word "news" when referring to "sensational, bite sized news articles" (because it makes for a better headline). He doesn't think all journalism is bad. The article concludes with this thought:

"Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too."

You and the author seem to mostly agree in that respect.

[blei]

Tangential comment:

News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable.

That's actually what frustrates me most about this article. For people who do plan to continue following news (likely including most readers of the article), the article isn't very actionable.

I would love to see a few smart people work together, look through the author's points, and outline a few ways to mitigate the legitimate problems summarized in each point. The article might be useful for other people who haven't considered these points before, but in its current state of merely spreading awareness, it's not very useful for me.

[steveklabnik]

> Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment.

... what if bitcoin, currently, _is_ only about the speculative aspect, and is not actually more useful with less friction?

[base698]

If that is the case, then I used a bad example, but I really don't think I did.

Off topic, but... I recently bought a days usage from put.io with bitcoin. They got their money instantly, I don't have to worry about a hacker getting my credit card info or using more bitcoins in my wallet than I gave. I didn't have to enter a bunch of personal information to prove my identity.

[nswanberg]

I think it was a great example for a possibly not as great point. I think both you and tokenadult would prefer to read a paper on using bitcoin in vending machines http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.t... rather than something more sensationalist like http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/robocoin/ ( with titles along the lines of Bitcoin ATMs: Valhalla Incarnate or the Looming Death of Civilization?)

And I like your example of a use of bitcoin apart from speculation. The sensationalist articles love bitcoin because it is new, but also because a few people have become rich and poor from speculating on it and its future is uncertain, which leaves lots of room in the stories for "raising concerns".

But as tokenadult pointed out, we can avoid those articles and the sources that tend to deliver them.

[mynewwork]

When a hacker gets your credit card info, you're liable for $50 and have the hassle of a few days without your card until you get new one.

When a hacker gets your bitcoin wallet, they can empty out your entire account.

[base698]

That's why you have multiple wallets, which you can create with a click of a button. It's effortless to create as many wallets as required for you to feel safe.

[pfisch]

It is just sooo much easier to get credit card information though. You literally give all of it to everyone any time you use it.

I don't really know why credit cards don't have a public/private key situation but they don't, so people are just stealing them constantly or applying for them with a bunch of stolen personal information and then running up your credit in ways that are pretty difficult to detect.

A lot of the fraud that is occurring today is because the systems we are using to transmit wealth digitally are inherently very insecure.

[Karunamon]

When the government wishes to make your life miserable and you have a credit card, they can call your credit card company and get your account frozen for reasons.

When the government wishes to make your life miserable and you have a bitcoin wallet, they have to do a lot more work if they want those funds.

[ceol]

Because the government making your life miserable by freezing your account is just as common as someone stealing your credit card, right?

[Karunamon]

I bet people losing their bitcoin wallets to an intruder (or indeed any file on their computer) happens less often than credit card theft.

[marcosdumay]

> I didn't have to enter a bunch of personal information to prove my identity.

You are wrong here. You did exactly that (a bitcoin transaction is that), just in a way you are not used to.

[base698]

Yes, but I didn't have to fill out a two page form, I clicked send in my bitcoin client.

[zobzu]

Oh man. News that focuses on actionable. Utopia !

I actually believe this renewed news spam (brought by ourselves through the internet) probably makes us all dumber as a whole, over time.