4 ms·

Yes, but you also seem to know more about the story than the average person. When SBF lies or gaslights, you can see right through it. Different story for the

Yes, but you also seem to know more about the story than the average person. When SBF lies or gaslights, you can see right through it. Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive.

guywithahat 4y ago
While I have little confidence in the average NYT reader I think people need to be able to make up their own minds, and Sam has an important and relevant perspective which we should be able to take into account, even if he might frame it in a way that makes him look good
- dontknowwhyihn 4y ago
  He’s a criminal fraudster.
- largepeepee 4y ago
  It's not like he hasn't been talking or typing. His lawyers probably reckoned he was talking way too much, was too much of a liability and dropped him immediately. The real question is he keeps receiving positive media coverage? They keep trying to frame him as, just a "dumb kid and his friends" that "accidentally misplaced billions" - when in fact, it is pretty obvious he planned most of it, by how his complex corporate structure was and the constant deleting of evidence every step of the way. Not to mention how he gave himself over a billion of personal loans and spending millions on bribes towards the end for hopes of political protection when he knew he was running out of rope to hide his scam.
  - brookst 4y ago
    Not sure where you’re seeing this coordinated effort to frame him positively. Im sure there are some takes like that, but there is also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-sit-in-the-crosshairs-of-u-s-prosecutors-11668398012 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-sit-in-th... https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-incompetence-legal-strategy https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-incom... I’m seeing plenty of critical coverage. Are you really not seeing that?
    - cstejerean 4y ago
      Headlines like "Sam Bankman-Fried’s Plans to Save the World Went Down in Flames" paint him in a more positive light than he deserves IMO. There were no plans to save the world.
- raegis 4y ago
  Can you point to any one thing he said which no one else has said before? Maybe an insightful comment to help understand his "relevant perspective"? He got a degree from MIT, did a year at Jane Street, but is unable to keep basic financial records??? This doesn't make sense to me, and seems like obvious fraud.
  - actionablefiber 4y ago
    I don't think he has any special wisdom to impart, but I really like the potential payoff opportunity. Something really funny could happen! Like a pie in his face or a profoundly self-unaware quip that sends the crowd into half shrieking laughter and half boos.
actionablefiber 4y ago
Is that true? I have to think that the average attendee of the New York Times's DealBook summit is probably going to be fairly high-information. I don't think the "average person" will even know about this conference much less care enough to watch the speeches.
fasthands9 4y ago
I would withhold judgement. For all we know the interviewer (who is going to be much more prepared and informed than people here) is going to press him in front of thousands of people why he stole people's money and lied about it. Let's see.
- partiallypro 4y ago
  Given it's Andrew Ross Sorkin, he probably won't.
throwaway09223 4y ago
This is true of basically every public figure. I guess you're suggesting the NYT shouldn't let him speak, to protect us from ourselves? That's a startling position.
- watwut 4y ago
  They are not letting me speak. They are not letting average fraudster waiting for court day to speak. Given that, yes, they should be able to not let speak whoever. They are selecting very few people to speak and rejecting huge amounts of other people. But the other real thing is how you introduce the speaker. What do you say about the speaker in your materials, whether you promote him as trustworthy or not.
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    > They are not letting me speak. Please don't take this personally, but I generally have no interest in watching random people speak. They know their audience. On the other hand, if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself, I would watch. Interest does not mean endorsement.
    - watwut 4y ago
      > Interest does not mean endorsement. That does depend on how you introduce him and what questions you ask. It does matter on whether when he says lies about Jews for example in that interview, you let them stand unopposed. If you use positive or euphemisms ridden introduction, then you are endorsing actually. "The next speaker is smart awesome guy who has extensive experience in leading a crypto fund". > if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself, His speeches are no secret. If you invite Hitler, introduce him nicely and he then go about Jewish danger, they you are in fact helping him promote genocide. And that guy would not go for interview where he be in any danger of not dominating tone (he was good at popular politics). But seriously, why is it that nazi speech is always the most important one? I dont see anyone going "interview with Usama Bin Ladin, lets have Pol Pot speaking, lets have Stalin speaking, we should add communists/anarchists/ISIS into the mix".
gumby 4y ago
It's an interview not a talk (see my other comment)
bioemerl 4y ago
I'm not a fan of protecting people from themselves. Let them speak.
HWR_14 4y ago
> Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive. That doesn't matter. Who cares how the public sees him? All that's going to matter is how a jury sees him shortly. And the prosecution will be able to present evidence. In the meantime, let him keep speaking on the record and admitting to things. And providing a show for those of use who are paying attention. Besides, I'm not sure how many "average listeners" are going to be tuning into the NYT event. I assume it's mostly people who have been following the story.

guywithahat 4y ago

While I have little confidence in the average NYT reader I think people need to be able to make up their own minds, and Sam has an important and relevant perspective which we should be able to take into account, even if he might frame it in a way that makes him look good

dontknowwhyihn 4y ago
He’s a criminal fraudster.
largepeepee 4y ago
It's not like he hasn't been talking or typing. His lawyers probably reckoned he was talking way too much, was too much of a liability and dropped him immediately. The real question is he keeps receiving positive media coverage? They keep trying to frame him as, just a "dumb kid and his friends" that "accidentally misplaced billions" - when in fact, it is pretty obvious he planned most of it, by how his complex corporate structure was and the constant deleting of evidence every step of the way. Not to mention how he gave himself over a billion of personal loans and spending millions on bribes towards the end for hopes of political protection when he knew he was running out of rope to hide his scam.
- brookst 4y ago
  Not sure where you’re seeing this coordinated effort to frame him positively. Im sure there are some takes like that, but there is also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-sit-in-the-crosshairs-of-u-s-prosecutors-11668398012 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-sit-in-th... https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-incompetence-legal-strategy https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-incom... I’m seeing plenty of critical coverage. Are you really not seeing that?
  - cstejerean 4y ago
    Headlines like "Sam Bankman-Fried’s Plans to Save the World Went Down in Flames" paint him in a more positive light than he deserves IMO. There were no plans to save the world.
raegis 4y ago
Can you point to any one thing he said which no one else has said before? Maybe an insightful comment to help understand his "relevant perspective"? He got a degree from MIT, did a year at Jane Street, but is unable to keep basic financial records??? This doesn't make sense to me, and seems like obvious fraud.
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  I don't think he has any special wisdom to impart, but I really like the potential payoff opportunity. Something really funny could happen! Like a pie in his face or a profoundly self-unaware quip that sends the crowd into half shrieking laughter and half boos.

actionablefiber 4y ago

Is that true? I have to think that the average attendee of the New York Times's DealBook summit is probably going to be fairly high-information. I don't think the "average person" will even know about this conference much less care enough to watch the speeches.

fasthands9 4y ago

I would withhold judgement. For all we know the interviewer (who is going to be much more prepared and informed than people here) is going to press him in front of thousands of people why he stole people's money and lied about it. Let's see.

partiallypro 4y ago
Given it's Andrew Ross Sorkin, he probably won't.

throwaway09223 4y ago

This is true of basically every public figure. I guess you're suggesting the NYT shouldn't let him speak, to protect us from ourselves? That's a startling position.

watwut 4y ago
They are not letting me speak. They are not letting average fraudster waiting for court day to speak. Given that, yes, they should be able to not let speak whoever. They are selecting very few people to speak and rejecting huge amounts of other people. But the other real thing is how you introduce the speaker. What do you say about the speaker in your materials, whether you promote him as trustworthy or not.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  > They are not letting me speak. Please don't take this personally, but I generally have no interest in watching random people speak. They know their audience. On the other hand, if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself, I would watch. Interest does not mean endorsement.
  - watwut 4y ago
    > Interest does not mean endorsement. That does depend on how you introduce him and what questions you ask. It does matter on whether when he says lies about Jews for example in that interview, you let them stand unopposed. If you use positive or euphemisms ridden introduction, then you are endorsing actually. "The next speaker is smart awesome guy who has extensive experience in leading a crypto fund". > if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself, His speeches are no secret. If you invite Hitler, introduce him nicely and he then go about Jewish danger, they you are in fact helping him promote genocide. And that guy would not go for interview where he be in any danger of not dominating tone (he was good at popular politics). But seriously, why is it that nazi speech is always the most important one? I dont see anyone going "interview with Usama Bin Ladin, lets have Pol Pot speaking, lets have Stalin speaking, we should add communists/anarchists/ISIS into the mix".

gumby 4y ago

It's an interview not a talk (see my other comment)

bioemerl 4y ago

I'm not a fan of protecting people from themselves. Let them speak.

HWR_14 4y ago

> Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive. That doesn't matter. Who cares how the public sees him? All that's going to matter is how a jury sees him shortly. And the prosecution will be able to present evidence. In the meantime, let him keep speaking on the record and admitting to things. And providing a show for those of use who are paying attention. Besides, I'm not sure how many "average listeners" are going to be tuning into the NYT event. I assume it's mostly people who have been following the story.