6 ms·

I find it kind of insane that so many people continue to expend any effort at all debunking Newsweek's claims. Unless they derive personal pleasure from it, ju

by rdl 13y ago

I find it kind of insane that so many people continue to expend any effort at all debunking Newsweek's claims. Unless they derive personal pleasure from it, just write the author off forever as a journalist, and Newsweek and its editors as a publication, and drive on.

neilk 13y ago
The question the article is trying to answer is not whether Newsweek was wrong - everybody knows they are wrong, now. The question the article is interested in, is whether they should have known that they were wrong, before publishing. I think that was already a pretty obvious YES before this matrix was compiled, but there's some value in systematizing it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jgalt212 13y ago
  At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, I don't think everyone knows Newsweek is wrong. In fact, I think think there's some significant non-zero probability that Newsweek was right. The harder Satoshi's denials are, the more I think Newsweek was on to something here. I'm not saying Newsweek is right, but they are not provably wrong.
  - simonw 13y ago
    Why do the denials make you think Newsweek were right? If you were incorrectly named as something by a major publication and people refused to believe you, wouldn't you keep denying it?
    - Hypx 13y ago
      If you were legitimately unfairly accused, your denials should at least be remotely credible and not make yourself out to be a hugely dishonest person. Dorian's denial fails quite badly on both counts.
      - Bluestrike2 13y ago
        In what way?
        Hypx 13y ago
        I've pointed out elsewhere that Dorian is making very dubious claims: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7420870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7420870 If he had simply made a simple denial he would be more believable. There is no need for blatant deception in your own denial.
        pg_is_a_butt 13y ago
        asians are sneaky. #PEARLHARBOR
  - digikata 13y ago
    The standard for Newsweek shouldn't be that they publish something that might be true, and might be speculation, and maybe someone comes along to prove them false. If the publication wants to be credible, the standard is that the stories they publish should be provably true - especially if the accusation is going to inject chaos into somebody's life.
  - TrainedMonkey 13y ago
    As a general principle I will agree with probability statement, however I would like to note that given the evidence we have it might be smaller than one in eight billion. That is, provided satoshi is not dead, randomly chosen living human would have a higher chance of being satoshi.
    - jgalt212 13y ago
      So you don't think the circumstantial evidence presented (both by Newsweek and Dorian's interesting reaction to the article) make it's greater than 1 in 8B that Dorian is Satoshi? That's not a terribly tenable position.
      - TrainedMonkey 13y ago
        This is more or less simple Bayesian logic. There is an explanation of every claim Newsweek made (explaining away). At the same time we have a lot more evidence of Dorian not being Satoshi. I just think that probability we would have observed all that evidence and Dorian being Satoshi is exceptionally small.
  - michaelt 13y ago
    The harder Satoshi's denials are, the more I think Newsweek was on to something here. What would you expect if Newsweek was wrong, if not a denial?
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    I (still) think Newsweek was probably right. I found his interview about "bitcoms" and "I've never communicated with bitcoin" to be at odds with who this guy is/was even if he wasn't the "bitcoin" Satoshi; just a bit over-the-top in selling an ignorance that I don't believe is likely in someone with his background. Also to me the sending of a letter "via lawyer" seems fairly suspicious, adding some air of legal legitimacy to the claims without actually suing Newsweek or taking action that would open the issue up to real legal discovery.
    - Pinckney 13y ago
      >Also to me the sending of a letter "via lawyer" seems fairly suspicious, adding some air of legal legitimacy to the claims without actually suing Newsweek or taking action that would open the issue up to real legal discovery. What do you think he can (successfully) sue over?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mikehearn 13y ago
Hi folks! I wrote the article (and woke up surprised to find it on HN). I initially compiled this prior to Dorian's definitive written denial. Prior to that development, it genuinely seemed like the Newsweek article was going to (a) simply fade into obscurity and (b) never be retracted. The possibility of "b" was unacceptable, because without a final nail in the coffin, most news organizations would still treat it as though it were legitimate – e.g. referring to Dorian with phrases like "the alleged Bitcoin founder", and so on. I think Dorian's written denial probably served as that final nail, but I still released this because despite the denials, I think Newsweek easily could have done the same research I did in compiling this, and come to this conclusion before they published the feature and damaged their rep.
- ds9 13y ago
  I stopped in here to say, I really like the idea of listing points for and against a proposition being true, in ambiguous cases like this. Often in relation to, say news stories or other controversial claims or ideas, the public have an interest in knowing which of conflicting versions is true, but lack access to primary sources of info. Then people who need to make a "best guess" are forced to rather subjectively estimate the plausibility of various statements, based on more subjective factors including estimates of general credibility of sources. In such cases, it's probably best to make explicit the grounds for any conclusion - it clarifies for oneself, and may enable improvement by allowing others to review the estimates.
  - natdempk 13y ago
    This was what I really liked about this article as well. I wish there was more news presented in this format, as it is making a point, but also presents counterarguments to its claims and the evidence for both sides.
- aestra 13y ago
  >referring to Dorian with phrases like "the alleged Bitcoin founder", and so on That is a correct way to refer to him, even if you didn't believe it was him. al·leged əˈlejd/ adjective adjective: alleged 1. (of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality. "the alleged conspirators" synonyms: supposed, so-called, claimed, professed, purported, ostensible, putative, unproven How the heck else would you refer to him? Someone publicly alleged him to be the Bitcoin founder.
larrys 13y ago
"I find it kind of insane that so many people continue to expend any effort at all" Oh come on now. Totally unfair. "Unless they derive personal pleasure from it" What's wrong if they do? What do people gain from watching football or answering other peoples questions at no charge on stack exchange? "just write the author off forever as a journalist" Are you saying the OP or the journalist at Newsweek? Anyway I thought it was an excellent analysis (assuming of course the base facts are true...) Your top comment is a put down in the vein of "anyone important wouldn't have time to do something like this". Like something a parent says to a child not recognizing that they might enjoy and gain benefit from something that the parent doesn't understand.
- rdl 13y ago
  I was saying if they do derive personal pleasure, fine, but the horse is dead already. (I meant the newsweek author should be written off as a journalist. And probably as a human being.) He did an exceptionally good and thorough job in debunking it here, but he's also one of the ~10 most important people in Bitcoin, so I'm just kind of sad if he felt obligated to do this. If he did it because it was fun for him personally, then great.
vinceguidry 13y ago
Not that simple. There's nothing about what Newsweek did that's in any way not standard operating procedure for just about every present-day journalist. Nobody checks facts any more, they've offloaded that responsibility onto us. We put up with it because it's still easy enough for us to cognitively delude ourselves that there are still "good" outlets left, that conveniently line up with our personal partisan political views. Journalism is no longer the art of being right, it's the art of being first.
Bluestrike2 13y ago
It's an excellent exercise in critical thinking skills where you're weighing the support for two mutually exclusive conclusions. On a more social level, we all benefit from this sort of push-and-pull with investigative journalism because ideally, it pressures journalists to ensure their work is well-supported before press. In all likelihood, Goodman and Newsweek will always have the scars from this debacle in the end. Even if Newsweek's story was proved accurate in the end, the fact that their return to print was shrouded in this sort of controversy is beyond embarrassing.

by rdl 13y ago

neilk 13y ago

The question the article is trying to answer is not whether Newsweek was wrong - everybody knows they are wrong, now. The question the article is interested in, is whether they should have known that they were wrong, before publishing. I think that was already a pretty obvious YES before this matrix was compiled, but there's some value in systematizing it.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jgalt212 13y ago
At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, I don't think everyone knows Newsweek is wrong. In fact, I think think there's some significant non-zero probability that Newsweek was right. The harder Satoshi's denials are, the more I think Newsweek was on to something here. I'm not saying Newsweek is right, but they are not provably wrong.
- simonw 13y ago
  Why do the denials make you think Newsweek were right? If you were incorrectly named as something by a major publication and people refused to believe you, wouldn't you keep denying it?
  - Hypx 13y ago
    If you were legitimately unfairly accused, your denials should at least be remotely credible and not make yourself out to be a hugely dishonest person. Dorian's denial fails quite badly on both counts.
    - Bluestrike2 13y ago
      In what way?
      - Hypx 13y ago
        I've pointed out elsewhere that Dorian is making very dubious claims: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7420870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7420870 If he had simply made a simple denial he would be more believable. There is no need for blatant deception in your own denial.
      - pg_is_a_butt 13y ago
        asians are sneaky. #PEARLHARBOR
- digikata 13y ago
  The standard for Newsweek shouldn't be that they publish something that might be true, and might be speculation, and maybe someone comes along to prove them false. If the publication wants to be credible, the standard is that the stories they publish should be provably true - especially if the accusation is going to inject chaos into somebody's life.
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  As a general principle I will agree with probability statement, however I would like to note that given the evidence we have it might be smaller than one in eight billion. That is, provided satoshi is not dead, randomly chosen living human would have a higher chance of being satoshi.
  - jgalt212 13y ago
    So you don't think the circumstantial evidence presented (both by Newsweek and Dorian's interesting reaction to the article) make it's greater than 1 in 8B that Dorian is Satoshi? That's not a terribly tenable position.
    - TrainedMonkey 13y ago
      This is more or less simple Bayesian logic. There is an explanation of every claim Newsweek made (explaining away). At the same time we have a lot more evidence of Dorian not being Satoshi. I just think that probability we would have observed all that evidence and Dorian being Satoshi is exceptionally small.
- michaelt 13y ago
  The harder Satoshi's denials are, the more I think Newsweek was on to something here. What would you expect if Newsweek was wrong, if not a denial?
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  I (still) think Newsweek was probably right. I found his interview about "bitcoms" and "I've never communicated with bitcoin" to be at odds with who this guy is/was even if he wasn't the "bitcoin" Satoshi; just a bit over-the-top in selling an ignorance that I don't believe is likely in someone with his background. Also to me the sending of a letter "via lawyer" seems fairly suspicious, adding some air of legal legitimacy to the claims without actually suing Newsweek or taking action that would open the issue up to real legal discovery.
  - Pinckney 13y ago
    >Also to me the sending of a letter "via lawyer" seems fairly suspicious, adding some air of legal legitimacy to the claims without actually suing Newsweek or taking action that would open the issue up to real legal discovery. What do you think he can (successfully) sue over?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mikehearn 13y ago

Hi folks! I wrote the article (and woke up surprised to find it on HN). I initially compiled this prior to Dorian's definitive written denial. Prior to that development, it genuinely seemed like the Newsweek article was going to (a) simply fade into obscurity and (b) never be retracted. The possibility of "b" was unacceptable, because without a final nail in the coffin, most news organizations would still treat it as though it were legitimate – e.g. referring to Dorian with phrases like "the alleged Bitcoin founder", and so on. I think Dorian's written denial probably served as that final nail, but I still released this because despite the denials, I think Newsweek easily could have done the same research I did in compiling this, and come to this conclusion before they published the feature and damaged their rep.

ds9 13y ago
I stopped in here to say, I really like the idea of listing points for and against a proposition being true, in ambiguous cases like this. Often in relation to, say news stories or other controversial claims or ideas, the public have an interest in knowing which of conflicting versions is true, but lack access to primary sources of info. Then people who need to make a "best guess" are forced to rather subjectively estimate the plausibility of various statements, based on more subjective factors including estimates of general credibility of sources. In such cases, it's probably best to make explicit the grounds for any conclusion - it clarifies for oneself, and may enable improvement by allowing others to review the estimates.
- natdempk 13y ago
  This was what I really liked about this article as well. I wish there was more news presented in this format, as it is making a point, but also presents counterarguments to its claims and the evidence for both sides.
aestra 13y ago
>referring to Dorian with phrases like "the alleged Bitcoin founder", and so on That is a correct way to refer to him, even if you didn't believe it was him. al·leged əˈlejd/ adjective adjective: alleged 1. (of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality. "the alleged conspirators" synonyms: supposed, so-called, claimed, professed, purported, ostensible, putative, unproven How the heck else would you refer to him? Someone publicly alleged him to be the Bitcoin founder.

larrys 13y ago

"I find it kind of insane that so many people continue to expend any effort at all" Oh come on now. Totally unfair. "Unless they derive personal pleasure from it" What's wrong if they do? What do people gain from watching football or answering other peoples questions at no charge on stack exchange? "just write the author off forever as a journalist" Are you saying the OP or the journalist at Newsweek? Anyway I thought it was an excellent analysis (assuming of course the base facts are true...) Your top comment is a put down in the vein of "anyone important wouldn't have time to do something like this". Like something a parent says to a child not recognizing that they might enjoy and gain benefit from something that the parent doesn't understand.

rdl 13y ago
I was saying if they do derive personal pleasure, fine, but the horse is dead already. (I meant the newsweek author should be written off as a journalist. And probably as a human being.) He did an exceptionally good and thorough job in debunking it here, but he's also one of the ~10 most important people in Bitcoin, so I'm just kind of sad if he felt obligated to do this. If he did it because it was fun for him personally, then great.

vinceguidry 13y ago

Not that simple. There's nothing about what Newsweek did that's in any way not standard operating procedure for just about every present-day journalist. Nobody checks facts any more, they've offloaded that responsibility onto us. We put up with it because it's still easy enough for us to cognitively delude ourselves that there are still "good" outlets left, that conveniently line up with our personal partisan political views. Journalism is no longer the art of being right, it's the art of being first.

Bluestrike2 13y ago

It's an excellent exercise in critical thinking skills where you're weighing the support for two mutually exclusive conclusions. On a more social level, we all benefit from this sort of push-and-pull with investigative journalism because ideally, it pressures journalists to ensure their work is well-supported before press. In all likelihood, Goodman and Newsweek will always have the scars from this debacle in the end. Even if Newsweek's story was proved accurate in the end, the fact that their return to print was shrouded in this sort of controversy is beyond embarrassing.