It’s absurd as he is essentially a well connected criminal.
edit I do want to correct one thing - this is not a puff piece like the NYT one, actually it implicates him.
Not sure what what the people pushing this narrative aren’t understanding.
If they wanted to protect him they would refuse to interview him and try to convince him not to speak to anyone but counsel about this.
They are clouded by anger and frustration, I’d wager, many folks lost money in this fraud. Some maybe caught up in the mob mentality and excitement around taking SBF down.
Anything short of absolute demonization is not good enough when you’re mad, I suppose.
From the other day, it seems, they're angry that the NYT isn't saying, in exact words, "SBF is a massive criminal who committed massive fraud".
And when you respond and say "That's because their lawyers understand the concept of defamation", they say "well, then they just need to talk to people and have them say it so everyone knows he's a criminal and committed fraud".
He would have done better with a street smart criminal lawyer.
I'm not sure whether you're saying "I did something bad, repeatedly, but it's ok because I'm admitting it" (while arguing someone else who did something bad shouldn't be let off the hook for admitting they did something bad), or whether instead you're taking pride in routinely acting in a way that subtracts value from the community (while arguing someone else who acted in ways detrimental to the community should receive harsher judgements than you feel he's received).
Either reading suggests an opportunity for productive self reflection.
Posting criticisms of articles you haven't read isn't the scale of damage that SBF caused, but the belief that "I'm not intending to cause harm so the harm I'm causing isn't real" appears to be at the root of both sets of outcomes. The impact of SBF's actions was higher simply because one day he found himself holding a larger lever than most of us have the occasion to hold. It's good to be in practice, should that day come.
[1] I can't say I've ever felt that I was well-connected politically...
“When I went to California to try to fight into it, I thought, ‘Well, there’s only 120 legislators. I’ll talk to them all one on one,'” Bankman said. “I found that in order to do it, I had to hire a lobbyist because I just couldn’t handle the details or get the meetings. In Congress, when I went there, now there’s 500 plus, and what I found everywhere I went is that Intuit had already preceded me. They’d already met every representative I was going to meet.”
Did your mother create a political fundraising organization?
“In 2018, the secretive Stanford-connected Democratic fundraising group Mind the Gap (MTG) funneled over $20 million toward competitive U.S. House of Representative elections and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) organizations. In 2020, MTG wants to increase that number to $140 million.
“MTG is led by Barbara Fried, the William W. and Gertrude H. Saunders Professor of Law; Paul Brest, an emeritus professor of law and director of the Law and Policy Lab; and Graham Gottlieb, a Stanford research affiliate. Of the three, Gottlieb has the most direct policy experience, having formerly served in junior roles in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and in Obama’s White House.”