Headline: "Binance served crypto traders in Iran despite US sanctions"
Content: "Binance banned Iranian users after sanctions, 7 got missed/found a workaround, they were banned later anyways"
Content: "Binance banned Iranian users after sanctions, 7 got missed/found a workaround, they were banned later anyways"
> The exchange's popularity in Iran was known inside the company. Senior employees knew of, and joked about, the exchange's growing ranks of Iranian users, according to 10 messages they sent to one another in 2019 and 2020 that are reported here for the first time. "IRAN BOYS," one of them wrote in response to data showing the popularity of Binance on Instagram in Iran.
The implication of the article is not that 7 people did it. It's that the platform is widely popular in Iran.
"Internal messages indicate that Binance might have turned a blind eye to Iranians using VPNs (and later banned them)" is a much weaker claim than "Binance continued serving Iranians despite sanctions"
As I mentioned in a different comment, the headline might be technically true, and there's definitely a story, but the headline paints a drastically different picture than the article. Almost every line of "we found someone in Iran who had gotten in" is followed by "they got banned later"
Given that, this headline doesn't seem beyond the pale:
> Binance served crypto traders in Iran despite U.S. sanctions
Folks who expect the headline to be extra detailed will always be dissatisfied IMO.
It’s on the individual to read the story. Folks who don’t will misunderstand regardless.
But to be clear I’ve got no problem with your clarification here either.
It's not even like there's nothing to be seen! "Binance may have turned a blind eye to and encouraged VPN usage" would have been a much better summary!
I try to guess what the headline means before reading the article; if I guessed wrong I downgrade that source.
They are to be taken exactly as written, since they are designed to be displayed as one liners in a financial terminal, like in this image:
https://i.insider.com/4bc623be7f8b9a2b3a870500
They actually put a lot of work into their titles.
The former reinforces preconceived notions that all crypto organizations are criminal and blatantly violate the law.
The latter presents a nuanced situation of the difficulties of complying with international sanctions as an internet company.
It's naive to think that headlines aren't explicitly designed to not only be clickbait, but also to incept and reinforce false ideas in the minds of the vast majority who won't read the story in detail. Even if it is our individual responsibility to read the story before forming opinions, that's not the reality.