Hacker News Reader

Comment by adasdasdas | Hacker News Reader

It uses the same tone that SBF uses when characterizing the situation as a complicate mixup instead of what it really is, deliberate fraud using customer funds to increase leverage.

If you want to compare tone, you can look up any NYT article on FB https://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/facebook-inc.

If you want something specific to compare, just take a look at the headline/subtitle which about as far as most people get in any article.

View on HN

> It uses the same tone that SBF uses when characterizing the situation as a complicate mixup instead of what it really is, deliberate fraud using customer funds to increase leverage.

That's because describing it as "deliberate fraud" would require evidence of intent that they don't have. I agree that it's likely the case, but I wouldn't expect a journalist to state it as fact at this point.

Here is a better title.

FTX firm headed by SBF collapses after failing to process user withdrawals. Mismanaged funds and risky trades are to blame. Victims and prominent figures within the crytposphere allege fraud.

Funny how when it comes to most stories, "Business is killing babies... says person (random person on twitter)" is good enough.

Funnily enough, this is a pretty succinct description of the article that's being called a puff piece.

Listen, people want their opinions validated. Mix that with a weak understanding of libel laws and certain people with potentially libelous opinions will feel like their voice isn’t heard in mainstream media.

It’s kind of how we got one of our recent presidents…

You're streching now from puff piece to "tone".

So you don't think you can present the same 2 sets of facts with different tone/connotation and achieve drastically different outcomes in public opinion?

You can. The article discusses negative things about FTX. What do consider a puff piece?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com