> Why would journalists (and regulators) assume that SBF meant well? On "meant well", this seems the mirror of attacking one's motive. I noticed that journali

> Why would journalists (and regulators) assume that SBF meant well? On "meant well", this seems the mirror of attacking one's motive. I noticed that journalists loved to assume the worst of the people they don't like and assume the best of those they do like. Attacking one's motive is really a malicious logical fallacy, as it's practically impossible to defend against such attacks. I really hope journalists focus on what people do instead.