3 ms·
I looked at it the exact opposite way. To me, the headline was flattering. It shows that Western Union sucks $400MM out of people while providing a service that
by SkipperCat 5y ago
I looked at it the exact opposite way. To me, the headline was flattering. It shows that Western Union sucks $400MM out of people while providing a service that is easily moved to cryptocurrency. I see it as a declarative win for Bitcoin by showing how it actually saved Salvadorians a lot of money.
Its also common knowledge that Western Union and their ilk have been exploiting and sucking dry people who live on the margins of our financial system. Any article that says they're loosing money to a competitor is fine by me.
Even as someone who hates the crypto hype, I have to say this time the crypto-win is legit.
- chuckSu 5y agoThis
- billytetrud 5y agoI guess you're right, the article is pretty pro bitcoin. Still an odd choice of headline if you ask me.
- mig39 5y agoThe person who writes the article often doesn't write the headline.
- bellyfullofbac 5y agoSeems like it's your bias filter doing that. I read it and my bias filter said "It's going to cost the company that's usually associated with 409/Nigerian scammers because they allow for untracable thefts, and otherwise overcharge migrants to send money back home? Good."
- putnambr 5y agoA better (focusing on positives instead of negatives, but the media feeds off of negativity) headline would be "New Bitcoin wallets could save El Salvadorans $400M a year in Western Union fees"
- BizarroLand 5y agoYou could even leave out the "in Western Union fees" and it would make for a smashing headline.