Comment by eps
8 days ago
> Why should journalism engage in the implied pro-active censorship here?
Because in this particular case it endangers subject's life.
8 days ago
> Why should journalism engage in the implied pro-active censorship here?
Because in this particular case it endangers subject's life.
> 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.
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?
I'm not reading your suggested implication at all in the other person's comment.
It’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?
3 replies →