4 ms·

> Why there is no investigation? There most certainly is. Stuff like this takes time though (see Elizabeth Holmes) and worse, SBF seems to be not on US soil at

> Why there is no investigation? There most certainly is. Stuff like this takes time though (see Elizabeth Holmes) and worse, SBF seems to be not on US soil at all so would need an extradition. > Why he still can speak on NY Times event? It'll be most interesting to see what he has to say now. I don't think someone committing illegal acts (currently or in the past) should be grounds for a full on ban for speaking in public. Worst case scenario (for him) he says something he shouldn't have, and further goes into the rabbit hole. Best case scenario for us, we get insights we didn't have before. Also, banning people based on what's illegal would mean Edward Snowden couldn't do any public speeches anymore in US-based events. Is that what you really want?

robswc 4y ago
>Also, banning people based on what's illegal I think he shouldn't be speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars. Seems like a pretty easy decision. People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less.
- capableweb 4y ago
  > speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Maybe I'm just morbidly curious, but I'd like to hear even out everyone, guilty of crime or not. Doesn't mean I'll take what they say to heart. But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. > People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less. Does that mean it's right?
  - robswc 4y ago
    >Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Sure. I don't see why that has to be hosted by the NYT though. He could make a YouTube video at any time explaining all of that. The NYT talk was scheduled before all of this happened tho, so I don't think that was their original plan. >But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. I don't think we have to talk legal or illegal. He stole billions of dollars from his customers. There's 0 silver lining there. >Does that mean it's right? No, it just highlights the bias of institutions.
quyleanh 4y ago
No, it's not what I want. I think very simple. He did lost billions of thousands of people and there is no excuse, no apology, no compensation plan. The US media like WSJ still says good for him, NY Times invites hime to talk nonsense. There are many evidences about he has private property, money... People has pointed out his untrustworthy but nothing happened. I don't understand. To be honest, I really don't understand what they're doing now in US. Both people and government...
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  The NYT invite was sent prior to the fraud information coming out.

robswc 4y ago

>Also, banning people based on what's illegal I think he shouldn't be speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars. Seems like a pretty easy decision. People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less.

capableweb 4y ago
> speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Maybe I'm just morbidly curious, but I'd like to hear even out everyone, guilty of crime or not. Doesn't mean I'll take what they say to heart. But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. > People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less. Does that mean it's right?
- robswc 4y ago
  >Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Sure. I don't see why that has to be hosted by the NYT though. He could make a YouTube video at any time explaining all of that. The NYT talk was scheduled before all of this happened tho, so I don't think that was their original plan. >But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. I don't think we have to talk legal or illegal. He stole billions of dollars from his customers. There's 0 silver lining there. >Does that mean it's right? No, it just highlights the bias of institutions.

quyleanh 4y ago

No, it's not what I want. I think very simple. He did lost billions of thousands of people and there is no excuse, no apology, no compensation plan. The US media like WSJ still says good for him, NY Times invites hime to talk nonsense. There are many evidences about he has private property, money... People has pointed out his untrustworthy but nothing happened. I don't understand. To be honest, I really don't understand what they're doing now in US. Both people and government...

Apocryphon 4y ago
The NYT invite was sent prior to the fraud information coming out.