> The goal here is the Silicon Valley dream of automating away the human element. this doesn't seem to be an accurate characterization of the plan proposed by

> The goal here is the Silicon Valley dream of automating away the human element. this doesn't seem to be an accurate characterization of the plan proposed by Srinivisan. > There is no shortage of raw data — people read news at all because you’re using narrative to explain why these facts are noteworthy. This idea seems more targeted at the proliferation of false information than the lack of information. Another relevant consideration would be the democratization of the narrative shaping process. > And McCrum relied utterly on the backing of the Financial Times, a strong paper with strong opinions on frauds in the market — particularly when the “checked aggressively” was private investigators following him, and the German regulator trying to prosecute him for looking too deeply into the fraud. Hence the movement to broaden participation in journalism by creating technology that allows everyone to participate rather than rely on the existence of powerful institutions that are favorable to your cause. > But I’m also not so sure Srinivasan would think taking down the Wirecard fraud is the sort of thing journalists should even be doing Part of the allure of the blockchain is that, in theory, neither Srinivasan nor anyone else would be able to stop randos from publicizing their attestation to the occurrence of frauds etcetera in real time in a way that their claims could be independently vetted by other people, all of whose reputations would be attached to their output. > Dr. Srinivasan is a smart dumb guy, not a dumb dumb guy. But this is idiot nerd nonsense that’s been tried repeatedly — it’s a stupid ICO idea, that multiple ICOs tried variations of. This is the particular species of dumbass that a crypto guy comes up with. Theres a lot of bad shit in the blockchain world but this is not a good take. Gerard seems to be more motivated by his dislike of certain personalities mentioned and his disdain for blockchains than anything else. I'd like to see someone with less baggage critically engage with these issues because its interesting and would be a public service. I'm disappointed that this article wasn't able to do this. Looking at the author's background, he seems to be a "bitcoin critic" and hopefully Srinivasan et al publish a more formal statement of their proposal and perhaps Gerard can engage critically with the actual proposal instead of what he did here.