4 ms·

> Pretty compelling story. Not necessarily for its revelations, but for the fact that John Carreyrou and the NYT decided to publish it at all. When is the line

> Pretty compelling story. Not necessarily for its revelations, but for the fact that John Carreyrou and the NYT decided to publish it at all. When is the line crossed from journalism into doxxing? Whoever created Bitcoin has a legitimate safety reason to stay anonymous. Anyone suspected of holding that much wealth becomes a target - as does their family.

tptacek 7mo ago
There is no such line. The actual line is whether someone is newsworthy; the safeguard you have against journalism abusing random people (which it has done, often, over the last 150 years) is that journalists ordinarily don't write intrusive stories about random people. (There are some other safeguards, but they're highly situational.) The conflict between journalism and "doxxing" is a Redditism that people are frantically trying to import into real life. Maybe Reddit norms will upend the longstanding norms (and purpose) of journalism! But nobody should kid themselves that the norms have always been compatible.
- 0xbadcafebee 7mo ago
  I agree, in that Journalism has always been an unethical business masquerading as moral imperative. But I think this "Redditism applied to real life" is actually society grappling with the ethics of public safety and social accountability in the 21st century. Is it okay to dox a 16 year old Twitch streamer? Or a wealthy Satoshi? Or a crypto-Nazi? Laws only define so much, and we (society) have to fill in the gaps, which is messy. I think we're figuring out where the line is in real time.
- Topfi 7mo ago
  But are they themselves newsworthy or is it what they created and that they hold a lot of coins? There are many people, both FOSS devs and working for major corporations, that have contributed or singularly been responsible for very impactful technologies, but in general, if that person wants to keep their persona discreet and there is no evidence they have done anything of public interest, the reporting remains purely on what they have done. Akin to why Wikipedia generally has rules for notability (I’d argue Satoshi falls under ONEVENT if we are strict here). To me, the way you describe it, the line appears to be less in whether there may be a public interest and more whether there is public attention. In other words, is the line in the sand whether people should know this or whether they want to (and thus buy copies)? Genuinely asking, is there a rule set on this the NYT should adhere to? What is the APs position for dem asking a pseudononymous character only notable for a specific thing?
empath75 7mo ago
I hate this idea that doxxing is some kind if crime. “Who is the creator of bitcoin?” is a matter of great public and historical interest. Finding out who he is, is the purest form of journalism.
- catcowcostume 7mo ago
  Good point, personally I had never considered that doxing could be considered not illegal/crime.
  - shimon 7mo ago
    At what point does the use of clues to uncover the identity of a criminal cross the line from solid detective work to doxing? /s
  - mlrtime 7mo ago
    It's a horrible point, it assumes that the person being doxxed is the claim of the doxer. There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what?
    - empath75 7mo ago
      > There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what? What harm is caused by this article, do you think? He is already incredibly wealthy, already has security, and many people already assumed he was Satoshi Nakamoto. Claiming that someone invented a world altering technology is neither libel, nor defamation, _even if it an intentional lie_. If it is not a lie, or is merely a mistake it _certainly_ is neither.
      - dotancohen 7mo ago
        > What harm is caused by this article, do you think? Many people who are assumed to be wealthy have family members kidnapped. Even those who turn out to be not wealthy.
      - 7mo ago
FireBeyond 7mo ago
Except Satoshi has been "anonymous" and those Bitcoin have never moved, even when the sum total of that wallet might have been $10,000 or so. And if Satoshi's holdings now exceed $1B, well, for better or worse, multiple courts have ruled that billionaires are inherently public figures, because of their "outsized effect on public discourse".
- lovecg 7mo ago
  It would be hilarious if he intentionally or accidentally lost the key, and has been trying to cash out through those Bitcoin adjacent business ventures ever since.
- bluecalm 7mo ago
  Even if he is Satoshi he might not be a billionaire or rich at all.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
vintermann 7mo ago
Isn't it a matter of legitimate interest for me to know whether you're obscenely rich or not? After all, if you are, you can probably do things like buying elections and sending hitmen after my family. Either way, why can't they just deal with it the way other obscenely rich people deal with it?
arrrg 7mo ago
Doxxing (and the moral judgements attached to it) is a relatively new and not widespread concept. You can’t just say “but this is doxxing” and expect people to know what you are talking about and also attach the same negative label to it as you do the same way you would when you call out murder or theft. I personally don’t find “doxxing” that useful as a concept and as a guidepost to what I consider ethical or not. People who use the concept tend to be extremely zealous with at, to a point where anything identifying anyone is doxxing (and doxxing is to those people self-evidently unethical) and that just doesn’t seem useful or practical to me at all. As to this particular case: if you create something as corrosive, destructive and powerful as Bitcoin society should know you. You don’t get to hide in anonymity at all.
Cytobit 7mo ago
People use the word doxxing as if it's a sin or something. Doxxing is only unethical in specific contexts.

tptacek 7mo ago

There is no such line. The actual line is whether someone is newsworthy; the safeguard you have against journalism abusing random people (which it has done, often, over the last 150 years) is that journalists ordinarily don't write intrusive stories about random people. (There are some other safeguards, but they're highly situational.) The conflict between journalism and "doxxing" is a Redditism that people are frantically trying to import into real life. Maybe Reddit norms will upend the longstanding norms (and purpose) of journalism! But nobody should kid themselves that the norms have always been compatible.

0xbadcafebee 7mo ago
I agree, in that Journalism has always been an unethical business masquerading as moral imperative. But I think this "Redditism applied to real life" is actually society grappling with the ethics of public safety and social accountability in the 21st century. Is it okay to dox a 16 year old Twitch streamer? Or a wealthy Satoshi? Or a crypto-Nazi? Laws only define so much, and we (society) have to fill in the gaps, which is messy. I think we're figuring out where the line is in real time.
Topfi 7mo ago
But are they themselves newsworthy or is it what they created and that they hold a lot of coins? There are many people, both FOSS devs and working for major corporations, that have contributed or singularly been responsible for very impactful technologies, but in general, if that person wants to keep their persona discreet and there is no evidence they have done anything of public interest, the reporting remains purely on what they have done. Akin to why Wikipedia generally has rules for notability (I’d argue Satoshi falls under ONEVENT if we are strict here). To me, the way you describe it, the line appears to be less in whether there may be a public interest and more whether there is public attention. In other words, is the line in the sand whether people should know this or whether they want to (and thus buy copies)? Genuinely asking, is there a rule set on this the NYT should adhere to? What is the APs position for dem asking a pseudononymous character only notable for a specific thing?

empath75 7mo ago

I hate this idea that doxxing is some kind if crime. “Who is the creator of bitcoin?” is a matter of great public and historical interest. Finding out who he is, is the purest form of journalism.

catcowcostume 7mo ago
Good point, personally I had never considered that doxing could be considered not illegal/crime.
- shimon 7mo ago
  At what point does the use of clues to uncover the identity of a criminal cross the line from solid detective work to doxing? /s
- mlrtime 7mo ago
  It's a horrible point, it assumes that the person being doxxed is the claim of the doxer. There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what?
  - empath75 7mo ago
    > There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what? What harm is caused by this article, do you think? He is already incredibly wealthy, already has security, and many people already assumed he was Satoshi Nakamoto. Claiming that someone invented a world altering technology is neither libel, nor defamation, _even if it an intentional lie_. If it is not a lie, or is merely a mistake it _certainly_ is neither.
    - dotancohen 7mo ago
      > What harm is caused by this article, do you think? Many people who are assumed to be wealthy have family members kidnapped. Even those who turn out to be not wealthy.
    - 7mo ago

FireBeyond 7mo ago

Except Satoshi has been "anonymous" and those Bitcoin have never moved, even when the sum total of that wallet might have been $10,000 or so. And if Satoshi's holdings now exceed $1B, well, for better or worse, multiple courts have ruled that billionaires are inherently public figures, because of their "outsized effect on public discourse".

lovecg 7mo ago
It would be hilarious if he intentionally or accidentally lost the key, and has been trying to cash out through those Bitcoin adjacent business ventures ever since.
bluecalm 7mo ago
Even if he is Satoshi he might not be a billionaire or rich at all.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

vintermann 7mo ago

Isn't it a matter of legitimate interest for me to know whether you're obscenely rich or not? After all, if you are, you can probably do things like buying elections and sending hitmen after my family. Either way, why can't they just deal with it the way other obscenely rich people deal with it?

arrrg 7mo ago

Doxxing (and the moral judgements attached to it) is a relatively new and not widespread concept. You can’t just say “but this is doxxing” and expect people to know what you are talking about and also attach the same negative label to it as you do the same way you would when you call out murder or theft. I personally don’t find “doxxing” that useful as a concept and as a guidepost to what I consider ethical or not. People who use the concept tend to be extremely zealous with at, to a point where anything identifying anyone is doxxing (and doxxing is to those people self-evidently unethical) and that just doesn’t seem useful or practical to me at all. As to this particular case: if you create something as corrosive, destructive and powerful as Bitcoin society should know you. You don’t get to hide in anonymity at all.

Cytobit 7mo ago

People use the word doxxing as if it's a sin or something. Doxxing is only unethical in specific contexts.