4 ms·
> Why should journalism engage in the implied pro-active censorship here? Because in this particular case it endangers subject's life.
by eps 6mo ago
> Why should journalism engage in the implied pro-active censorship here?
Because in this particular case it endangers subject's life.
- khalic 6mo agoLol you guys are really in a cult aren’t you? You’re implying that journalists should never out people that are too wealthy? Do you not see the massive red flag here?
- rationalist 6mo agoI'm not reading your suggested implication at all in the other person's comment.
- khalic 6mo agoIt’s the logical conclusion to his statement, why should Satoshi be treated differently, given more privacy rights, only because he’s a billionaire? Or do you think that making an exception for him is the logical choice here?
- rationalist 6mo agoNo, it's not the logical conclusion of that statement. You're assuming and extrapolating. "this particular case" ≠ "never"
- khalic 6mo agoWhich I addressed with the last sentence, if you think someone dose es special treatment, it’s even worse. What makes him special? That he’s rich?
- rationalist 6mo ago("dose es" typo of "deserves"?) I don't have anything to add that isn't already argued in other comments in this thread. I'm just pointing out that your opinions are not logical derivations.
- thinkharderdev 6mo ago> Because in this particular case it endangers subject's life. This seems like a stretch. Mr Back is already a well-known wealthy person who (presumably) owns lots of crypto. I think it's a stretch to think this article significantly increase the danger to his life.