Comment by shevy-java

7 days ago

Why should journalism engage in the implied pro-active censorship here?

With that reasoning you could censor everything, including the Epstein files. You only need to find some "critical reason", usually being safety concern or "but but but the children". So I disagree with that rationale.

How far would you want censorship to go?

Having said that, I am not particularly interested in the "who is mystery man" debate situation.

> There is no argument to be made there for the greater public good

That's an opinion. While I personally don't care, others may, so your statement here is also just an opinion. Trump also said the Epstein files are not relevant - I and many others think differently. I wonder how deep the Epstein kompromat situation is, it would be an ideal blackmail situation. Any democracy can be factually undermined that way.

8 comments

shevy-java

Reply
eps  7 days ago

> Why should journalism engage in the implied pro-active censorship here?

Because in this particular case it endangers subject's life.

  • thinkharderdev  7 days 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.

  • khalic  7 days ago

    Lol 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?