> Ethereum has made a handful of white men unfathomably rich, pumped pollutants into the air, and emerged as a vehicle for tax evasion, money laundering, and mind-boggling scams
Expected nothing less from Time...
Expected nothing less from Time...
You don't need a study, but you need some sort of base to the claim.
Your anecdote tells us nothing, I know many non-whites who got rich from crypto.
Not everything requires a study, but when writing an article you should back your click/race-bait claims up with facts if you just HAVE to put them in there. Maybe just leave it out since it wasn't relevant.
Journalists should cite every claim they make, even if it's tacked on and only a sentence long. Especially if it's a bold race-baiting one.
> What I can't figure out is are you just rules lawyering at this point or do you actually believe its not a problem.
It's a baseless racist assertion that can be taken out without detracting from the article.
MSM loves to race bait. Race relations are rough enough, it's irresponsible.
But when you call them out "oh they don't need to source every sentence". Ok.
> You are not going to ask them to cite the dictionary for each word, would you?
A word is not a claim, that is ridiculous. Noone is disputing the word "white" they are disputing that bitcoin only made a handful of whites richer.
GP can't prove a negative. It's on the journalist to source their assertions.
I personally know a few dozen people who used it in Brazil, Portugal, Japan, and India early on.
I'd say I know more non-whites than whites who used it.
That's just an anecdote, but it's more information than the racist journalist had.