My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
[deleted]
FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
41–50 of 226 posts
Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
I personally view financial theft as a form of violence.
Good for you? The law and society at large doesn't.
Violence - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then it could be the paper’s moment to shine The NYT having SBF speak at one of their conferences would be the paper's moment to shine?
Yes. If a tough reporter really nails him down with a tough interview, it could be a shining moment for journalism. If they fawn over him, as some have suggested of recent coverage, then it will be a failure. The NYT should keep him, dare him to show up, and then do their jobs: Hold his feet to the fire.
The summits are about making money not news.
Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Statistically speaking there's assuredly at least 1 person in this whole fiasco that lost most to all of their life savings, stolen from them, by this guy. This is an extreme form of violence, not physical but definitely psychological, your whole life of work savings was wiped out and taken by this guy. Holding the view you hold is why white-collar crimes are viewed so leniently compared to what you'd call violent cr…
It's not my view that he hasn't been charged or convicted, it is an objective fact. What is the definition of violence? > behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
> What is the definition of violence?
You've already conceded that words can hurt people (Alex Jones), so why are you trying to backpedal that now?
Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
#45My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
Honestly I actually doubt he did anything he can be charged with. The whole point of crypto is that you are investing in something ABSOLUTELY NOBODY wants to take responsibility for.
I find it amusing that there is now a call to apply the same rules for crypto exchanges. Didn't everyone hate traditional finance a few months ago?
Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but you also seem to know more about the story than the average person. When SBF lies or gaslights, you can see right through it. Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive.
While I have little confidence in the average NYT reader I think people need to be able to make up their own minds, and Sam has an important and relevant perspective which we should be able to take into account, even if he might frame it in a way that makes him look good
He’s a criminal fraudster.
Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not too much to ask for, or expect, really. Please tell me what reality you live in and how to get there. Hell, just look across this site to see all the advice that ethics are for those who like staying poor.
It's quite simple, you take a clear eyed look at the problems in the world and you say, "I don't need to accept this, this can and should be fixed." You'll no doubt encounter people saying silly stuff like you cited, because some people operate on the basis of "the most cynical take is the correct one;" you ignore these people and continue to focus on the problems at hand. Similar to how, if you want to start a busin…
One challenge with that approach is if you're not careful, someone might start identifying you as a threat because of that behavior, and start attacking you using the BS and lies that a great many others are susceptible too (or outright violence).
What we're seeing now is the part of the larger cycle where folks get more and more insistent that they're warped world view is correct (and it wouldn't surprise me if we get more violence than we got on Jan 6th later because of it), since they can't acknowledge that they're wrong and something bad is happening because of it, which will cause more bad things to happen.
It is imperative more people stand up and provide counter-pressure, because otherwise they will win.
Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
Honestly I actually doubt he did anything he can be charged with. The whole point of crypto is that you are investing in something ABSOLUTELY NOBODY wants to take responsibility for. I find it amusing that there is now a call to apply the same rules for crypto exchanges. Didn't everyone hate traditional finance a few months ago?
He signed up customers with documented agreements saying that their funds would be segregated and not lent out, and then he used the U.S. banking system's wire infrastructure to have their money sent directly to his hedge fund Alameda Research instead of the exchange FTX.
Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
#49Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
Honestly I actually doubt he did anything he can be charged with. The whole point of crypto is that you are investing in something ABSOLUTELY NOBODY wants to take responsibility for. I find it amusing that there is now a call to apply the same rules for crypto exchanges. Didn't everyone hate traditional finance a few months ago?
He admitted to using client funds against the stated TOS. Embezzlement, Fraud, whatever - a crime did occur, regardless of if it was crypto, and every country I've run across has laws against that.
Untangling how to charge him, and where, and digging up concrete enough evidence to file an indictment is going to take awhile of course. The post-bankruptcy CEO seems to be finding plenty.
As with a lot of non-violent crime, it takes awhile to arrest someone because there is a lot of paperwork. When the suspect has a lot of cash and lawyers, it takes longer because they need to make sure there isn't an angle they are missing that could get them off.