3 ms·

What you’ve said and what I’ve said are not in conflict. Coinbase clearly states that they believe there to be three complaints and that they’re generally in th

What you’ve said and what I’ve said are not in conflict. Coinbase clearly states that they believe there to be three complaints and that they’re generally in the clear. My point about reading between the lines is that the explicit, specific repetition of the claim and the way they’re saying it implies that the NYT is going to allege there were more complaints. So then: what of the missing complaints? What Coinbase is saying, essentially, is that whatever else is alleged either didn’t happen (eg, the NYT is outright lying), or that they weren’t really complaints. That’s what I’m getting at. It’s highly unlikely that the NYT is lying. I would be shocked if they did not verify in some way that the complaints alleged were indeed made to Coinbase. And I also do not think that Coinbase would accuse the NYT of lying either. It’s not a particularly defensible position. So - that’s the reading between the lines. To me, the most plausible explanation is that the NYT will allege multiple complaints, and Coinbase is trying to say “no those don’t count.”

ericpauley 6y ago
It seems plausible to me that The Times could use very similar language to "a number of people," and giving 3 examples while implying that the number is far more.
- drewbug01 6y ago
  That’s a fair point, and it’s definitely possible. We shall see, sometime before Sunday! That implies a high level of intentional deception on the part of the NYT, though. It has certainly happened, of course; and the opinion columns are full of it (like they are at all papers). I don’t believe that the NYT generally engages in intentional deception, however - so I’m inclined to believe that they aren’t intending on it now. But as you said, it is possible. And a healthy skepticism of the papers is not bad.
philtar 6y ago
I'm talking about what we have in front of us. You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I can't argue against magical articles that haven't been published yet. Also, if you think the NYT doesn't 'lie', then how about you read up on their reporting of the Duke lacrosse team case, or their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity. Coinbase isn't perfect. But NYT lies. A lot. But EVEN if the NYT doesn't lie, you haven't read the article yet.
- drewbug01 6y ago
  > I'm talking about what we have in front of us. What we have in front of us is a very poorly executed attempt at damage control - over an article that has not been published - and we really must remember that. If we simply accept what Coinbase has published as truth, then it frames everything differently. But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism. > You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I believe you misunderstand my motives. How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical. What I have been saying (in more diplomatic language) is that “this smells like a crock of shit from Coinbase,” and I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them. It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly. But I’m also trying to poke holes at the corporate speak, and trying to understand what they’re saying and what they’re not saying. And of course, it’s partly speculation! But what else could it be? They published a spin piece proclaiming innocence regarding the contents of an unpublished article. Of course we’re in the realm of speculation; the whole game started there the moment they published this letter. > their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity. Alleging hundreds of examples of a complete disregard to journalistic integrity requires proof, honestly. It’s a pretty hefty claim that I wouldn’t accept at face value (nobody should). If it’s your opinion, that’s fine - but it’s not fact unless you can point to some evidence. Extraordinary claims put the burden of proof on the party making the claims. > But NYT lies. A lot. Friend, this is not enlightened discourse. That’s an opinion, and not a well-substantiated one.
  - julianmarq 6y ago
    > we really must remember that Do we? Your opinion that is poorly executed doesn't actually mean that it is. > But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. And...? God forbid their wanting to control the narrative about... Themselves? I'm not seeing the problem there. > They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism. But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly. > How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical. You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question. > I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them Reading your comments, it seems more like a bias in favor of the NYT et al what is predisposing you to distrust them. Of course, nothing wrong with that. If you feel like they properly represent the truth of your views, not supporting them would be incongruous. But that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees about how well they represent the truth of the matter has to share your opinion. Indeed, sharing your opinion would be incongruous in that case. > It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly. This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish". > it’s partly speculation It's entirely speculation.

ericpauley 6y ago

It seems plausible to me that The Times could use very similar language to "a number of people," and giving 3 examples while implying that the number is far more.

drewbug01 6y ago
That’s a fair point, and it’s definitely possible. We shall see, sometime before Sunday! That implies a high level of intentional deception on the part of the NYT, though. It has certainly happened, of course; and the opinion columns are full of it (like they are at all papers). I don’t believe that the NYT generally engages in intentional deception, however - so I’m inclined to believe that they aren’t intending on it now. But as you said, it is possible. And a healthy skepticism of the papers is not bad.

philtar 6y ago

I'm talking about what we have in front of us. You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I can't argue against magical articles that haven't been published yet. Also, if you think the NYT doesn't 'lie', then how about you read up on their reporting of the Duke lacrosse team case, or their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity. Coinbase isn't perfect. But NYT lies. A lot. But EVEN if the NYT doesn't lie, you haven't read the article yet.

drewbug01 6y ago
> I'm talking about what we have in front of us. What we have in front of us is a very poorly executed attempt at damage control - over an article that has not been published - and we really must remember that. If we simply accept what Coinbase has published as truth, then it frames everything differently. But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism. > You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I believe you misunderstand my motives. How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical. What I have been saying (in more diplomatic language) is that “this smells like a crock of shit from Coinbase,” and I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them. It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly. But I’m also trying to poke holes at the corporate speak, and trying to understand what they’re saying and what they’re not saying. And of course, it’s partly speculation! But what else could it be? They published a spin piece proclaiming innocence regarding the contents of an unpublished article. Of course we’re in the realm of speculation; the whole game started there the moment they published this letter. > their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity. Alleging hundreds of examples of a complete disregard to journalistic integrity requires proof, honestly. It’s a pretty hefty claim that I wouldn’t accept at face value (nobody should). If it’s your opinion, that’s fine - but it’s not fact unless you can point to some evidence. Extraordinary claims put the burden of proof on the party making the claims. > But NYT lies. A lot. Friend, this is not enlightened discourse. That’s an opinion, and not a well-substantiated one.
- julianmarq 6y ago
  > we really must remember that Do we? Your opinion that is poorly executed doesn't actually mean that it is. > But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. And...? God forbid their wanting to control the narrative about... Themselves? I'm not seeing the problem there. > They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism. But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly. > How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical. You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question. > I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them Reading your comments, it seems more like a bias in favor of the NYT et al what is predisposing you to distrust them. Of course, nothing wrong with that. If you feel like they properly represent the truth of your views, not supporting them would be incongruous. But that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees about how well they represent the truth of the matter has to share your opinion. Indeed, sharing your opinion would be incongruous in that case. > It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly. This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish". > it’s partly speculation It's entirely speculation.