5 ms·

> It's not in the public interest to figure out who the creator of bitcoin is. It serves no purpose. It ads no value to bitcoin. But it is in Newsweek's intere

by mpyne 13y ago

> It's not in the public interest to figure out who the creator of bitcoin is. It serves no purpose. It ads no value to bitcoin. But it is in Newsweek's interest to find the creator of Bitcoin, if they can get the scoop. It's the free market plus the Bill of Rights (specifically the First Amendment) in action. A perfectly libertarian thing just happened here, IMHO.

ThomPete 13y ago
You don't live in a libertarian society so that means very little. The fact is that the press often hold back from releasing information often hold back from using Bill of rights. They should have been more careful here. Now it's too late. Read below. http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/6/5479050/press-chases-alleged-bitcoin-creator-through-los-angeles http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/6/5479050/press-chases-allege...
- mpyne 13y ago
  > You don't live in a libertarian society so that means very little. Are you saying such a thing would not have happened in a libertarian society? Do you seriously believe that?
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    I am saying that libertarian or not it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
declan 13y ago
And the free market plus the Bill of Rights plus tort law could punish Newsweek if they're wrong. See my tweet about legal liability: https://twitter.com/declanm/status/441711365888040960 https://twitter.com/declanm/status/441711365888040960
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well, who enforces tort law? The guys with the guns stealing the money from all of us. A government strong enough to suppress the free press is strong enough to oppress the liberties of us all. Etc. etc. Calling Newsweek 'trash journalism' to shred it of press protections won't do either, as otherwise that would put Wikileaks at risk. Even if the conclusion of the article is wrong I don't see how you introduce legal liability in the face of the Peter Zenger trial, as long as the facts presented were true (or reasonably believed to be true). Talking to one's relatives and co-workers is not a crime, after all (and how could it be otherwise; should the government regulate who we can speak to?).
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    You are missing the point. It doesn't matter how you turn it around. Journalists always have a choice and they constantly keep stuff out of the public. What matters is not whether they are legally allowed to do these things but whether they should had.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > Journalists always have a choice and they constantly keep stuff out of the public. Sure. And while I disagree with giving away the guy's address (or information that would lead directly to that), I don't see any other reason why Newsweek shouldn't have tried to track down Bitcoin's creator. Certainly that's a more compelling story than the normal drivel that hits the media nowadays, so it's hard to argue that Newsweek was filled with higher-value stories that they had to shove aside for this one. This is an actual attempt at investigative journalism, even if the person they decided to investigate wasn't to your personal liking. Any other news story and people would be claiming "the people have a right to know". If you take away revealing his personal location (though even that would hardly be difficult to find) I don't see the problem here. The enigmatic Sakamoto was a figure of wide publicity before this story, which is why Newsweek spent money to track to track down his location. And as the creator of a market now worth probably a billion+ (if not more) it's hard to argue that the public has no moral right to investigate more.

by mpyne 13y ago

ThomPete 13y ago

You don't live in a libertarian society so that means very little. The fact is that the press often hold back from releasing information often hold back from using Bill of rights. They should have been more careful here. Now it's too late. Read below. http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/6/5479050/press-chases-alleged-bitcoin-creator-through-los-angeles http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/6/5479050/press-chases-allege...

mpyne 13y ago
> You don't live in a libertarian society so that means very little. Are you saying such a thing would not have happened in a libertarian society? Do you seriously believe that?
- ThomPete 13y ago
  I am saying that libertarian or not it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

declan 13y ago

And the free market plus the Bill of Rights plus tort law could punish Newsweek if they're wrong. See my tweet about legal liability: https://twitter.com/declanm/status/441711365888040960 https://twitter.com/declanm/status/441711365888040960

mpyne 13y ago
Well, who enforces tort law? The guys with the guns stealing the money from all of us. A government strong enough to suppress the free press is strong enough to oppress the liberties of us all. Etc. etc. Calling Newsweek 'trash journalism' to shred it of press protections won't do either, as otherwise that would put Wikileaks at risk. Even if the conclusion of the article is wrong I don't see how you introduce legal liability in the face of the Peter Zenger trial, as long as the facts presented were true (or reasonably believed to be true). Talking to one's relatives and co-workers is not a crime, after all (and how could it be otherwise; should the government regulate who we can speak to?).
- ThomPete 13y ago
  You are missing the point. It doesn't matter how you turn it around. Journalists always have a choice and they constantly keep stuff out of the public. What matters is not whether they are legally allowed to do these things but whether they should had.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Journalists always have a choice and they constantly keep stuff out of the public. Sure. And while I disagree with giving away the guy's address (or information that would lead directly to that), I don't see any other reason why Newsweek shouldn't have tried to track down Bitcoin's creator. Certainly that's a more compelling story than the normal drivel that hits the media nowadays, so it's hard to argue that Newsweek was filled with higher-value stories that they had to shove aside for this one. This is an actual attempt at investigative journalism, even if the person they decided to investigate wasn't to your personal liking. Any other news story and people would be claiming "the people have a right to know". If you take away revealing his personal location (though even that would hardly be difficult to find) I don't see the problem here. The enigmatic Sakamoto was a figure of wide publicity before this story, which is why Newsweek spent money to track to track down his location. And as the creator of a market now worth probably a billion+ (if not more) it's hard to argue that the public has no moral right to investigate more.