3 ms·

If SBF was able to get a smuggled phone, as the article speculates, to do an unauthorized interview, then he is clearly using his connections to sidestep aspect

by viccis 2y ago

If SBF was able to get a smuggled phone, as the article speculates, to do an unauthorized interview, then he is clearly using his connections to sidestep aspects of his incarceration. Putting him in solitary is an appropriate way to cut him off from engaging in further such corruption, and it should be repeated for any further violations. The only problem here is that it took this long for them to identify that he had the ability to do things like this. Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen.

missedthecue 2y ago
If they accuse him of having a phone they should probably find it before punishing him
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  You think Tucker fabricated the interview using AI?
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Tucker Carlson went to court to argue that no reasonable person would believe what he says on the air. [1] Yet American conservatives hang on his every word. So it doesn't much matter whether the interview was fabricated, edited, or otherwise fraudulent. It was aired to lay the groundwork for a pardon. Look for SBF to receive a pardon from Trump in the future (cf. Ross Ulbricht.) 1: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/ https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-...
    - Maxatar 2y ago
      In reading the actual judgement that's not the case: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/McDougal-Opinion.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Mc... Tucker Carlson is specifically cited as maintaining that he spoke the truth on page 5. Rather it's Fox News that argues that Tucker Carlson was stating an opinion with hyperbole for effect: "Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect... This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”" At any rate, the case is a lot more complex than just one guy claiming no one believes anything he says. Using it to justify the possibility that the interview by Tucker Carlson was not with the actual Sam Bankman-Fried by with a potential imposter or AI is absolute bonkers.
      - scottiescottie 2y ago
        you actually read the case instead of parroting a talking point? witch
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        Help me out here. What part of "Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect" is a "talking point?" What was Carlson actually stating, and what was the context? Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        > Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court. Wait, you actually think he was sued by people who took his statements seriously (aka fans)? The people taking it seriously were likely misconstruing rhetoric in a literal sense. This happens quite a bit. Sometimes the rhetoric is out of line, sometimes not. One could argue that his meaning is clearly understood by fans, like a big inside joke, and that the ridiculous claims are just another form of entertainment. That said, if you watch Tucker now you'll see that he's much more serious than when he was on Fox News. I don't think applying the results from that case in any way to his independent journalism makes sense.
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        That said, if you watch Tucker now I'll take your word for it, how's that.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        You're missing out. He gets some VERY interesting interviews and asks the hard questions. I think he went kinda easy on SBF but that is probably because he didn't want to have SBF cut the interview short.
_3u10 2y ago
Your contention is that only billionaires can get contraband in prison? Are you by any chance familiar with prison?
- viccis 2y ago
  >Your contention is that only billionaires can get contraband in prison? That's a whole new sentence. There's no logical progression from: "Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen." to "only billionaires can get contraband in prison" Rethink the modalities in the two comments and try again.
ericcumbee 2y ago
you don't have to be particularly well connected in prison to get access to a phone. Just knowing who to talk to and being able to give them something they want. phones are right up there with drugs and tobacco being smuggled into prisons.

by viccis 2y ago

missedthecue 2y ago

If they accuse him of having a phone they should probably find it before punishing him

dullcrisp 2y ago
You think Tucker fabricated the interview using AI?
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Tucker Carlson went to court to argue that no reasonable person would believe what he says on the air. [1] Yet American conservatives hang on his every word. So it doesn't much matter whether the interview was fabricated, edited, or otherwise fraudulent. It was aired to lay the groundwork for a pardon. Look for SBF to receive a pardon from Trump in the future (cf. Ross Ulbricht.) 1: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/ https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-...
  - Maxatar 2y ago
    In reading the actual judgement that's not the case: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/McDougal-Opinion.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Mc... Tucker Carlson is specifically cited as maintaining that he spoke the truth on page 5. Rather it's Fox News that argues that Tucker Carlson was stating an opinion with hyperbole for effect: "Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect... This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”" At any rate, the case is a lot more complex than just one guy claiming no one believes anything he says. Using it to justify the possibility that the interview by Tucker Carlson was not with the actual Sam Bankman-Fried by with a potential imposter or AI is absolute bonkers.
    - scottiescottie 2y ago
      you actually read the case instead of parroting a talking point? witch
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        Help me out here. What part of "Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect" is a "talking point?" What was Carlson actually stating, and what was the context? Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        > Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court. Wait, you actually think he was sued by people who took his statements seriously (aka fans)? The people taking it seriously were likely misconstruing rhetoric in a literal sense. This happens quite a bit. Sometimes the rhetoric is out of line, sometimes not. One could argue that his meaning is clearly understood by fans, like a big inside joke, and that the ridiculous claims are just another form of entertainment. That said, if you watch Tucker now you'll see that he's much more serious than when he was on Fox News. I don't think applying the results from that case in any way to his independent journalism makes sense.
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        That said, if you watch Tucker now I'll take your word for it, how's that.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        You're missing out. He gets some VERY interesting interviews and asks the hard questions. I think he went kinda easy on SBF but that is probably because he didn't want to have SBF cut the interview short.

_3u10 2y ago

Your contention is that only billionaires can get contraband in prison? Are you by any chance familiar with prison?

viccis 2y ago
>Your contention is that only billionaires can get contraband in prison? That's a whole new sentence. There's no logical progression from: "Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen." to "only billionaires can get contraband in prison" Rethink the modalities in the two comments and try again.

ericcumbee 2y ago

you don't have to be particularly well connected in prison to get access to a phone. Just knowing who to talk to and being able to give them something they want. phones are right up there with drugs and tobacco being smuggled into prisons.