4 ms·

Sure, of course. I wanted to show that Molly White doesn’t seem to be open to a discussion about the broader issues, and her blog is certainly very one-sided,

by EGreg 3y ago

Sure, of course. I wanted to show that Molly White doesn’t seem to be open to a discussion about the broader issues, and her blog is certainly very one-sided, which I actually appreciate (I love one sided stuff, because it tends to go out of its way to find the best arguments for its side, as long as you balance it with the other side). We are in a unique position to share our experience with her. We spent years quietly building open technology to help people around the world stop relying on centralized entities which clearly is a problem. We have been seeking out and engaging well-known people in substantive discussions around issues that really matter, — sociopolitical, economic, regulatory — etc. There are tons of people around the world who engage with us. They would like to see things solved. Both on the left and the right. Here are just a few: David Harvey Noam Chomsky Patri Friedman Robert Murphy Sarah Hanks Richard Heart The original inventors of Freenet Kademlia DHT Ripple etc. And then there is the anti-Web3 crowd who downvotes anything with the slightest positivity toward Web3 being useful or needed. This crowd loves someone like Molly White to highlight everything wrong. I was inviting Molly White to come and have a real conversation about real issues, that I highlighted. She refused. I see the same in, say, rabid democrats vs republicans, left vs right, with their and purity tests and shouting down of opposing views. I respect when the people who speak for them are willing to come and engage in a real discussion, and explore ideas. A few people, like Molly, would rather not. For years, we have been rather welcoming and eager to find out the pitfalls and responsible solutions. I wish AI shops were like that. But on HN, there are a ton of activists who want to bury anything that is in favor of Web3 even slightly. They do it silently and avoid discussion. And if AI is criticized, they downvote that too. The activists in the HN ”overton window” these days seem to think that there are no people that n tech working on real Web3 and Web5 projects outside their bubble. They will be proven wrong in 2024 but these trends on HN seems to drown out real substance.

drewbeck 3y ago
The issue I have here is that someone turning down a request to be on your podcast does not, actually, mean that "she refuses to engage on these topics"; it may seem like a major litmus test for you, but in fact people are busy and we have to make choices about how to spend our time all the time. I'm sure that if she said yes to every crypto-enthusiast who messaged her "debate me!" she'd have no time for her own projects and would be spending all her life on crypto-enthusiast podcasts with people who are just trying to get her to see the light. Your implication that Molly is uninterested in "real conversations about real issues" because she turned down your podcast is, ultimately, a projection that confirms your priors.
- EGreg 3y ago
  Have you seen her on any discussion ever, engaging with the issues or opposing views? Has she come on someone else's show or something? You're being very generous in your interpretations, not even Molly offered such explanations, she just went silent. The typical interpretation is that there is a reason she'd rather not get into further. And I can guess what that reason is. Her "crowd" wouldn't like it if she appeared there. Many in Richard Heart's "Hexican" crowd were upset that he came on our show, especially because I went right into the issues with him. Take it for what it is: a biased one-sided blog. As I said, I find those to be more valuable than middle-of-the-road ones, because they do more hard-hitting arguments and research. But you have to balance it out by reading other blogs, such as at least CoinDesk or CoinTelegraph or watching CoinBureau. And many people on HN don't. They're happy to be in a bubble. PS: All those other people I mentioned are likely far more busy than Molly. Noam Chomsky is for sure, I know that. And he's been on my show multiple times: https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/mqfbzk/noam_chomsky_discussion_about_capitalism_and_news/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/mqfbzk/noam_chomsk... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc http://davidharvey.org/2023/02/noam-chomsky-and-david-harvey-discuss-capitalism-and-war/ http://davidharvey.org/2023/02/noam-chomsky-and-david-harvey... In fact, if ANYONE on HN would like to come on our show and discuss why Web3 is not needed, full of scams and is stupid, email me (greg) at intercoin.org. I will make an episode with you and put it up on our YouTube channel.
  - rideontime 3y ago
    The entitlement dripping from this post demonstrates exactly why she didn't engage any further with you.
    - EGreg 3y ago
      You’re not biased at all. I am pretty humble but when it comes to engaging on substance, I am rather bold. I am not a professional podcaster and I don’t have millions of dollars or followers. But I have met and had real discussions everyone from Andrew Yang to Tim Berners-Lee to the guys from Stable Diffusion, to top Christian apologists etc. If a topic matters to me, I will go and try to speak with the people who have something major to say. Sometimes you have to punch above your weight to get quality discussions. I am probably the least well known guy who had all those people on my show and subsequently developed friendships. I tend to be very polite, try to focus on issues instead of the person. But I do remain intellectually honest, say what I really think, and if that means going against the orthodoxy and braving downvotes then so be it. My HN history is clear going back years. As I said I am open to taking people on HN who aren’t well-known, as long as they sincerely believe the opposite and can argue it well. Because I care about the issues, not celebrities. (Molly isn’t really that famous, if we had to be honest.) Entitlement? Simply refusal to acknowledge “my place” in this capitalist society and exercising my right to “free association” instead. If someone is publicly putting out biased, one-sided narratives, I could very well reach out and welcome them to discuss. I have said NOTHING about her refusal for many months, to anyone, and totally forgot about it … until this very post where I shared my experience because it was relevant. Basically I think we need better platforms for public discourse.
EamonnMR 3y ago
> relying on centralized entities which clearly is a problem More or less of a problem than out and out scams? > Web5 Did I miss web4? Overall your complaint would be similar to if I complained that Bryan Krebs was one-sided in his coverage of cybercrime, in that he's never pro-crime.
- EGreg 3y ago
  We used to call it Web4, in fact. Jack Dorsey was the reason we went back and renamed everything to Web5. I was always thinking how 2 + 3 = 4, but then Dorsey went full 5 and we wanted to make sure when people google "Web5" they find us. Our soft goal is to have Intercoin rank higher than Bluesky for "Web5". > relying on centralized entities which clearly is a problem >More or less of a problem than out and out scams? Probably more. The societal impact and problems from centralized social networks are documented in many places, including the Social Dilemma documentary, the breakdown of society, record levels of sadness in teenagers, having social network addiction be classified as a disease in many countries including China and now USA, states like Utah trying to protect children from it, and much more more. I have been documenting just the loneliness part here for a decade: https://qbix.com/investors/articles https://qbix.com/investors/articles https://rational.app https://rational.app goes further into the breakdown of society due to these centralized, closed-source Big Tech oligopolies I guess you like having public forums being privately owned by tiny groups of people, but the world needs open, decentralized alternatives. Sorry if HN doesn't think so anymore, but they should embrace the "hacker ethos" instead of stockholm syndrome shilling for the corporate VC world.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - EamonnMR 3y ago
    > The societal impact and problems from centralized social networks are documented in many places... But hold up now, is a decentralized social network dependent on a decentralized currency/token/Blockchain? Mastodon for example is a robust decentralized social network has absolutely nothing to do with whatever web2+n you're touting. The idea that you need to rebuild currency in order to build a new kind of social network reminds me of the common gamedev trap of writing a game engine in order to write a game (and shipping neither.) > I guess you like having public forums being privately owned by tiny groups of people When you said centralization I didn't think you meant social networks specifically since generally crypto talks about disrupting banks and governments and I think (with some obvious exceptions) I prefer those to, what would you call it... the anarcho-kleptocracy represented by the Crypto space.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
boringg 3y ago
I don't understand your logic - you specifically target someone who is highlighting all the scams that is being uncovered in the crypto world. You ask them to come on your show to talk about crypto (generating content for you and increasing your viewership) and then you think that because they aren't interested in helping you out your specific interests that somehow equates to she isn't interested in broad conversations? You want to bring her on the show to generate your own clout under the guise or maybe honestly finding solutions and are airing personal emails to tarnish their reputation. I don't think that's the greatest way to treat potential guests.
- EGreg 3y ago
  I personally don’t need her to “increase our viewership”. Or even post it publicly. Could have a private discussion. Like I had with Ben Shapiro for example, about his “Jews in Name Only” thing. Or with Warren Mosler. As I said, I care about substance. The people who publicly espouse one view day in and day out are some of the best people to discuss with. It’s sad that you think everything is about grift. It’s like how many Russians cynically think everything US does has no goodwill behind it and must be about power politics and screwing others. Certainly a lot of it is, but I guess it is easier to assume that all the time when you have a cynical view. By the way if you think Molly White would give me clout then I am a little bit surprised. I had no idea she was that famous or well-known. Richard Heart got us the most views of any video on our channel. And so what? Oh yeah… here is proof that you’re wrong. Most of my Noam Chomsky videos were posted on youtube as UNLISTED and got maybe a couple hundred views over the years. If I was chasing subscribers I’d post them publicly !
  - boringg 3y ago
    My position stays the same - nothing you have said has change my perspective: 1. Airing private conversations in an attempt to make someone look bad isn't the best look especially if you are trying to get other people on your podcast. 2. There are a million reasons not to engage on a podcast - because someone doesn't does not imply any of your viewpoints or mean that they can't have an engaging conversation about it. 3. When I read your comments it looks to me like you wanted to duke it out in a battle about Web3 - someone who doesn't like conflict probably wouldn't want to spend their time doing that. 4. Just saw that Molly responded directly to your claims. As someone who hosts a podcast do your Due Diligence FFS before you spout off.
jemmyw 3y ago
Engagement is not always easy. You've had other public figures, but they want to be public figures. There could be a myriad of reasons for her turning you down from not caring, being busy, not liking you personally, not wanting to be more public than she already is. That she has posted something about the topic is not a compelling argument that she must take it further. I think you posting about it and posting the email was disrespectful. Although it has given us some insight into your mind.
- EGreg 3y ago
  I agree, and I could be wrong. After all, there can be a myriad of reasons for why I would want to have her on the show yet people on HN assume it is out of my desire to somehow become famous or advertise my coin or do a scam. They can’t imagine someone being genuinely in it for the tech and improving people’s lives. Or maybe they say those assumptions to “fit in” with what’s cool on HN right now. In any case, given how totally off base and provably wrong most ad-hominem comments here have been about my motivations, I would say the “insight into my mind” is completely off, and your assessment of how insightful the insight was, should be reevaluated. She didn’t “just post something”. She literally runs a blog where that is all she posts. It is reasonable to reach out to someone running a systematically anti-zionist blog and invite them to discuss things at any time of their convenience. They are doing the equivalent of standing on a street corner with a megaphone, for all the public to hear their thoughts, so of course they should expect someone to politely approach them and engage them.
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    I didn't say anything about what the insights are, I guess it's up to each person. However, you haven't done yourself favours with long rambling comments. If you had originally just said "I was interested in interviewing her on my podcast [link] but she declined." That would have been fine, folks would draw their own conclusions. Then there would be no look of disrespect on your part or people thinking you're trying to "call her out" or whatever it is you're doing. > They are doing the equivalent of standing on a street corner with a megaphone It's revealing you find it that in your face. Most people discover it via a link on hn, read, have a chuckle, move on. > expect someone to politely approach them Well indeed. And hopefully not see them splurge all over the place when they refuse to engage.

by EGreg 3y ago

drewbeck 3y ago

The issue I have here is that someone turning down a request to be on your podcast does not, actually, mean that "she refuses to engage on these topics"; it may seem like a major litmus test for you, but in fact people are busy and we have to make choices about how to spend our time all the time. I'm sure that if she said yes to every crypto-enthusiast who messaged her "debate me!" she'd have no time for her own projects and would be spending all her life on crypto-enthusiast podcasts with people who are just trying to get her to see the light. Your implication that Molly is uninterested in "real conversations about real issues" because she turned down your podcast is, ultimately, a projection that confirms your priors.

EGreg 3y ago
Have you seen her on any discussion ever, engaging with the issues or opposing views? Has she come on someone else's show or something? You're being very generous in your interpretations, not even Molly offered such explanations, she just went silent. The typical interpretation is that there is a reason she'd rather not get into further. And I can guess what that reason is. Her "crowd" wouldn't like it if she appeared there. Many in Richard Heart's "Hexican" crowd were upset that he came on our show, especially because I went right into the issues with him. Take it for what it is: a biased one-sided blog. As I said, I find those to be more valuable than middle-of-the-road ones, because they do more hard-hitting arguments and research. But you have to balance it out by reading other blogs, such as at least CoinDesk or CoinTelegraph or watching CoinBureau. And many people on HN don't. They're happy to be in a bubble. PS: All those other people I mentioned are likely far more busy than Molly. Noam Chomsky is for sure, I know that. And he's been on my show multiple times: https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/mqfbzk/noam_chomsky_discussion_about_capitalism_and_news/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/mqfbzk/noam_chomsk... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc http://davidharvey.org/2023/02/noam-chomsky-and-david-harvey-discuss-capitalism-and-war/ http://davidharvey.org/2023/02/noam-chomsky-and-david-harvey... In fact, if ANYONE on HN would like to come on our show and discuss why Web3 is not needed, full of scams and is stupid, email me (greg) at intercoin.org. I will make an episode with you and put it up on our YouTube channel.
- rideontime 3y ago
  The entitlement dripping from this post demonstrates exactly why she didn't engage any further with you.
  - EGreg 3y ago
    You’re not biased at all. I am pretty humble but when it comes to engaging on substance, I am rather bold. I am not a professional podcaster and I don’t have millions of dollars or followers. But I have met and had real discussions everyone from Andrew Yang to Tim Berners-Lee to the guys from Stable Diffusion, to top Christian apologists etc. If a topic matters to me, I will go and try to speak with the people who have something major to say. Sometimes you have to punch above your weight to get quality discussions. I am probably the least well known guy who had all those people on my show and subsequently developed friendships. I tend to be very polite, try to focus on issues instead of the person. But I do remain intellectually honest, say what I really think, and if that means going against the orthodoxy and braving downvotes then so be it. My HN history is clear going back years. As I said I am open to taking people on HN who aren’t well-known, as long as they sincerely believe the opposite and can argue it well. Because I care about the issues, not celebrities. (Molly isn’t really that famous, if we had to be honest.) Entitlement? Simply refusal to acknowledge “my place” in this capitalist society and exercising my right to “free association” instead. If someone is publicly putting out biased, one-sided narratives, I could very well reach out and welcome them to discuss. I have said NOTHING about her refusal for many months, to anyone, and totally forgot about it … until this very post where I shared my experience because it was relevant. Basically I think we need better platforms for public discourse.

EamonnMR 3y ago

> relying on centralized entities which clearly is a problem More or less of a problem than out and out scams? > Web5 Did I miss web4? Overall your complaint would be similar to if I complained that Bryan Krebs was one-sided in his coverage of cybercrime, in that he's never pro-crime.

EGreg 3y ago
We used to call it Web4, in fact. Jack Dorsey was the reason we went back and renamed everything to Web5. I was always thinking how 2 + 3 = 4, but then Dorsey went full 5 and we wanted to make sure when people google "Web5" they find us. Our soft goal is to have Intercoin rank higher than Bluesky for "Web5". > relying on centralized entities which clearly is a problem >More or less of a problem than out and out scams? Probably more. The societal impact and problems from centralized social networks are documented in many places, including the Social Dilemma documentary, the breakdown of society, record levels of sadness in teenagers, having social network addiction be classified as a disease in many countries including China and now USA, states like Utah trying to protect children from it, and much more more. I have been documenting just the loneliness part here for a decade: https://qbix.com/investors/articles https://qbix.com/investors/articles https://rational.app https://rational.app goes further into the breakdown of society due to these centralized, closed-source Big Tech oligopolies I guess you like having public forums being privately owned by tiny groups of people, but the world needs open, decentralized alternatives. Sorry if HN doesn't think so anymore, but they should embrace the "hacker ethos" instead of stockholm syndrome shilling for the corporate VC world.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- EamonnMR 3y ago
  > The societal impact and problems from centralized social networks are documented in many places... But hold up now, is a decentralized social network dependent on a decentralized currency/token/Blockchain? Mastodon for example is a robust decentralized social network has absolutely nothing to do with whatever web2+n you're touting. The idea that you need to rebuild currency in order to build a new kind of social network reminds me of the common gamedev trap of writing a game engine in order to write a game (and shipping neither.) > I guess you like having public forums being privately owned by tiny groups of people When you said centralization I didn't think you meant social networks specifically since generally crypto talks about disrupting banks and governments and I think (with some obvious exceptions) I prefer those to, what would you call it... the anarcho-kleptocracy represented by the Crypto space.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

boringg 3y ago

I don't understand your logic - you specifically target someone who is highlighting all the scams that is being uncovered in the crypto world. You ask them to come on your show to talk about crypto (generating content for you and increasing your viewership) and then you think that because they aren't interested in helping you out your specific interests that somehow equates to she isn't interested in broad conversations? You want to bring her on the show to generate your own clout under the guise or maybe honestly finding solutions and are airing personal emails to tarnish their reputation. I don't think that's the greatest way to treat potential guests.

EGreg 3y ago
I personally don’t need her to “increase our viewership”. Or even post it publicly. Could have a private discussion. Like I had with Ben Shapiro for example, about his “Jews in Name Only” thing. Or with Warren Mosler. As I said, I care about substance. The people who publicly espouse one view day in and day out are some of the best people to discuss with. It’s sad that you think everything is about grift. It’s like how many Russians cynically think everything US does has no goodwill behind it and must be about power politics and screwing others. Certainly a lot of it is, but I guess it is easier to assume that all the time when you have a cynical view. By the way if you think Molly White would give me clout then I am a little bit surprised. I had no idea she was that famous or well-known. Richard Heart got us the most views of any video on our channel. And so what? Oh yeah… here is proof that you’re wrong. Most of my Noam Chomsky videos were posted on youtube as UNLISTED and got maybe a couple hundred views over the years. If I was chasing subscribers I’d post them publicly !
- boringg 3y ago
  My position stays the same - nothing you have said has change my perspective: 1. Airing private conversations in an attempt to make someone look bad isn't the best look especially if you are trying to get other people on your podcast. 2. There are a million reasons not to engage on a podcast - because someone doesn't does not imply any of your viewpoints or mean that they can't have an engaging conversation about it. 3. When I read your comments it looks to me like you wanted to duke it out in a battle about Web3 - someone who doesn't like conflict probably wouldn't want to spend their time doing that. 4. Just saw that Molly responded directly to your claims. As someone who hosts a podcast do your Due Diligence FFS before you spout off.

jemmyw 3y ago

Engagement is not always easy. You've had other public figures, but they want to be public figures. There could be a myriad of reasons for her turning you down from not caring, being busy, not liking you personally, not wanting to be more public than she already is. That she has posted something about the topic is not a compelling argument that she must take it further. I think you posting about it and posting the email was disrespectful. Although it has given us some insight into your mind.

EGreg 3y ago
I agree, and I could be wrong. After all, there can be a myriad of reasons for why I would want to have her on the show yet people on HN assume it is out of my desire to somehow become famous or advertise my coin or do a scam. They can’t imagine someone being genuinely in it for the tech and improving people’s lives. Or maybe they say those assumptions to “fit in” with what’s cool on HN right now. In any case, given how totally off base and provably wrong most ad-hominem comments here have been about my motivations, I would say the “insight into my mind” is completely off, and your assessment of how insightful the insight was, should be reevaluated. She didn’t “just post something”. She literally runs a blog where that is all she posts. It is reasonable to reach out to someone running a systematically anti-zionist blog and invite them to discuss things at any time of their convenience. They are doing the equivalent of standing on a street corner with a megaphone, for all the public to hear their thoughts, so of course they should expect someone to politely approach them and engage them.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  I didn't say anything about what the insights are, I guess it's up to each person. However, you haven't done yourself favours with long rambling comments. If you had originally just said "I was interested in interviewing her on my podcast [link] but she declined." That would have been fine, folks would draw their own conclusions. Then there would be no look of disrespect on your part or people thinking you're trying to "call her out" or whatever it is you're doing. > They are doing the equivalent of standing on a street corner with a megaphone It's revealing you find it that in your face. Most people discover it via a link on hn, read, have a chuckle, move on. > expect someone to politely approach them Well indeed. And hopefully not see them splurge all over the place when they refuse to engage.