9 ms·
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
by sschueller 4y ago
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
- Overtonwindow 4y agoSurely they’ll pull him. The NYT may act like its above the people, the politics, but even this would be an overreach. However, if SBF is committed to showing up, then it could be the paper’s moment to shine. However I don’t think the Times quite has the nation’s confidence that it once enjoyed ..long ago.
- fidesomnes 4y ago
- Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago> then it could be the paper’s moment to shine The NYT having SBF speak at one of their conferences would be the paper's moment to shine?
- Overtonwindow 4y agoYes. If a tough reporter really nails him down with a tough interview, it could be a shining moment for journalism. If they fawn over him, as some have suggested of recent coverage, then it will be a failure. The NYT should keep him, dare him to show up, and then do their jobs: Hold his feet to the fire.
- MrRiddle 4y ago
- eli 4y agoThe summits are about making money not news.
- m348e912 4y agoEven if it is a money-making endeavor, the NYT could slightly mend its journalistic reputation with some hard-hitting questions to SBF. They have been soft-handed so far in their reporting on SBF and FTX and it reeks of major bias and conflict of interest. In case anyone doesn't know what I am referring to, here is some background. https://www.publish0x.com/making-cents/whats-wrong-with-the-nyt-article-about-sbf-xjrynyr https://www.publish0x.com/making-cents/whats-wrong-with-the-...
- chrchang523 4y agoNote that they aren't pulling him: https://twitter.com/andrewrsorkin/status/1595517635441090565 https://twitter.com/andrewrsorkin/status/1595517635441090565
- siculars 4y agoAs a lure, so they can arrest him in the US? Clicks? Otherwise not sure why.
- KptMarchewa 4y agoI don't think he's that stupid.
- polygamous_bat 4y agoThen again, I've been telling myself the exact same thing since the start of this saga and I have been proven wrong every single time.
- KptMarchewa 4y agoYes, but no - putting aside the whole organizational, accounting etc failure, he just doubled the stakes each time he could.
- loeg 4y agoI believe the US has an extradition treaty with the Bahamas.
- VagueMag 4y agoThey've said they expect him to attend virtually from the Bahamas.
- fisherjeff 4y agoI obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.
- wslh 4y agoHe can say that they were testing a new AI system that failed while they were sleeping...
- cypherpunks01 4y agoAll he seems to be able to say is that yes, he did YOLO with customer funds, and he is really sorry and wishes he didn't do that.
- HWR_14 4y agoHas he moved on to wishing he didn't do that? I've only heard him say he wished the YOLO worked.
- returnInfinity 4y agoYes, same. Sorkin says he won't hold back.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoThis is a huge red flag. Bankman-Fried is acting like the fix is already in. I won't believe this guy is actually going to prison until they slam the iron bars closed behind him.
- galangalalgol 4y agoI doubt any organized crime was using FTX. And if they were, he seems mart enough to pay them back first. But if there was some smallish organization of contraband dealers using FTX and he didn't know? White collar prison isn't his worst case outcome. As said earlier he has bribed the right big fish. But ignoring angry medium fish can be a problem. Also those might not be bribes. It might be a way to launder money into campaign contributions. Not that you really need that in the US now.
- andy9999 4y agoWhy would other people agree to share a stage with a guy who has possibly/probably(?) committed a massive fraud?
- nathias 4y agootherwise the stages would be empty
- spookthesunset 4y agoFor personal entertainment? I dunno? I mean something is gonna go down, might as well be there for the popcorn.
- dmix 4y agoThere's plenty of journalistic value in interviewing him and the audience will be very interested in hearing it. I'm not sure what being outraged over his interview is going to achieve Signalling you disagree with what he did? To protect people from his hearing his dangerous words? To punish him? IMO hearing his rationale, seeing how he convinced people, the lies he tells himself, etc should all be analyzed and publicly scrutinized. It's not like he's promoting some new venture or something.
- partiallypro 4y agoForget about the journalists, other speakers and interviewees are attending...why would THEY want to be associated with this?
- dmix 4y agoAssociated with what? An interview being done with a public figure? They aren't suddenly friends with the guy because he gave a virtual interview over Zoom at the same event as them. You don't need to be constantly publicly showing your outrage to make it clear "x person bad". We get it. We know he's bad. Even without such brave moral heroics.
- bink 4y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoHe hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
- mvdwoord 4y agoNot violent directly perhaps. I agree that letting him speak now won't hurt anyone, physically for sure.. but theft and destruction of wealth is not without consequences, in real life. If, through my actions, you become financially ruined, I may not have kicked, beaten, or raped you, but is the harm comparable? Is it violence?
- latchkey 4y agoI personally view financial theft as a form of violence.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoGood for you? The law and society at large doesn't. Violence - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
- maxbond 4y agoI think most understand violence to include things like intimidation, emotional abuse, and imprisonment. The expression "physical violence" is a reflection of this broader understanding - there wouldn't need to be clarification, otherwise. I think of violence as the use of force or implied force to limit the agency of another. I'm not sure I'd call this violence but I can see where they're coming from. Maybe ask for clarification instead of being rude and dismissive, or simply leave your sneering judgement unsaid. You may be find this view uninteresting, but I find your snark exhausting. I could just as easily say, "oh you're snarky, good for you?" Additionally GP added to the conversation, and your snark detracts.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- PragmaticPulp 4y agoThe claim is that they’ll use the opportunity to grill him with hard questions and check his lies on the spot. In reality, I have a hard time believing that after watching Kanye West’s recent media tour where he steamrolled his interviewers and used their platforms to repeat his claims over and over again. Even the podcasts where interviewers supposedly pushed back the most (Lex Fridman is often given as an example) barely resulted in Kanye acknowledging the pushback and didn’t stop him from repeating his points over and over on the platform. The NYTimes event is especially weird because it’s not being held up as a “watch us grill this liar” but rather “come hear talks from this impressive lineup of accomplished people!”
- candiddevmike 4y agoSBF is probably paying for the best personal brand repair money can buy. He knows if you can achieve the cult like following of Elon or Trump you can become untouchable with the right bribes.
- dmix 4y agoSBF's name is the reputational equivalent of Bernie Madoff. You think people are going to help him make a comeback or convince people to give him more money? His only counsel now is going to be criminal lawyers. No PR firm or conference interview could save this dude's reputation.
- marvin 4y agoHis PR team bought the New York Times. It's ludicrous to think that they're giving him this positive treatment without bribes. Well, not bribe-bribes, of course, but rather the kind of bribes that very rich and well-connected people can afford.
- akira2501 4y agoI have a hard time believing that Kanye West, a public entertainer with decades of media experience, is a reasonable bellwether for how SBF is likely to perform under similar circumstances.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- alexpetralia 4y agoI am surprised the NYT didn't de-platform him. Actually, I am not surprised the NYT did not de-platform him.
- brookst 4y agoWho has the NYT deplatformed? What platform do they even comtrol?
- dmix 4y agoGetting people kicked off speaking events is a common 'deplatforming' tactic.
- brookst 4y agoGreat. Who has the NYT deplatformed?
- dmix 4y agoWhat's your point? That NYTimes takes a stand against deplatforming? At their own summits? Or in their newspaper's opinion pieces?
- brookst 4y agoYou said you were surprised the NYT had not deplatformed him. I was asking what they had done in the past that made you think they would. I guess nothing?
- gumby 4y agoHe's being interviewed by Sorkin so even if FTX hadn't crashed, it would have been as interesting* and enlightening as SBF's interview with Levine. It will be even better now, and I will enjoy reading the transcript. * TBH my only interest in the whole things is Schadenfreude, like checking out a car crash in the street. The sector is so tiny that even if FTX brings the whole thing down it'll be a largely invisible ripple on a macro scale.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- readthenotes1 4y agoPerhaps so that he will come to the US so he can be arrested here?
- fredgrott 4y agotongue-in-cheek how else does DOJ get him to a location to arrest him in the easiest way possible?