[HN Gopher] CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's...
___________________________________________________________________
CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Additional
Bail Sureties [pdf]
Author : 1vuio0pswjnm7
Score : 98 points
Date : 2023-01-13 19:58 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ia801508.us.archive.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ia801508.us.archive.org)
| butmuh wrote:
| [dead]
| tedunangst wrote:
| Another request by The Associated Press, Bloomberg L.P., The
| Financial Times Ltd., CNBC LLC, Reuters News & Media Inc., Dow
| Jones & Co., Inc., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, Insider,
| Inc., and WP Company LLC, publisher of The Washington Post
| (collectively, the "News Organizations").
|
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59...
| insiderjob1 wrote:
| Too bad the NY Times isnt on this list. Between that and their
| shameful friendly interview (PR campaign?) on the Dealbook
| conference, one really wonders about the impartiality of their
| coverage.
| thomasmiller_ wrote:
| That Dealbook interview seemed more of a "We don't know what
| we're talking about so we can't ask you the hard questions"
| thing.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Hello brand new account sowing discord and negativity.
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| Well I'm not a brand new account by any means and I also
| share the opinion that media outlets are agenda-driven,
| partisan and far from impartial.
| Retric wrote:
| Most of them are some of the time, but it's hardly every
| single one all the time.
|
| Which is hardly novel, the only difference is so many
| have been bought up for propaganda rather than as a money
| making business.
| mikeg8 wrote:
| Doesn't matter the account is new, their point is valid.
| NYT coverage of the case was incredibly bizarre/suspicious.
| burkaman wrote:
| I disagree. There was one NYT article that seemed a
| little too soft that everyone jumped on, and like 10
| other NYT articles published at the same time that were
| completely normal. Here's a list of them if you're
| curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33609850
| mikeg8 wrote:
| Not curious, but thank you. While you may be right in
| regard to the ratio, the problem of that 1 and human
| psychology has damage done. Also, dealbook interview?!
| That trumps all the other articles, IMHO.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Not really. The facts weren't out and there weren't even
| charges yet. Articles about him weren't exactly glowing
| either.
| mikeg8 wrote:
| The press moves faster than the justice system and based
| on the facts that were public, their willingness to toss
| him softballs caused many people to rightfully question
| their journalistic integrity, simple as that.
| mc32 wrote:
| There are many other newsworthy things for which they
| _didn't_ wait for all the facts to come out before they
| publish stories. Waiting for the facts to come in is an
| excuse.
| SilasX wrote:
| Yeah I thought that was interesting. But are there
| counter examples to the trend? SBF-hostile media that
| aren't on the list, or SBF-friendly media that are?
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Bloomberg was widely criticized as being friendly with
| SBF because they had him on panels after the FTX flame
| out.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| One has to remember that journalism is _50%+ access._ All
| those _hard hitting_ journalists just _didn 't get access,_
| so clearly there's a place for both approaches in journalism.
| tedunangst wrote:
| From the list, the WP stands out as not concentrating on
| financial coverage. Neither does NYT. AP and Reuters are
| general coverage, but with fairly solid business interests.
|
| CNN, ABC, Fox, USA Today are all missing, from national news,
| but I'm not sure I'd expect them to get into this. Fox
| Business should be on the list, but redundant to WSJ.
|
| But at some point I imagine the list of parties becomes
| cumbersome. Maybe it was just the first six to click on the
| discord invite.
| [deleted]
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| A week earlier:
|
| https://ia801508.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...
|
| Same day:
|
| https://ia801508.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...
| londons_explore wrote:
| Do the news organisations know, they just aren't allowed to
| publish it?
|
| Or do they not know at all?
| xxpor wrote:
| They don't know. If they found out (via a leak, not via doing
| something explicitly illegal themselves like hacking), they
| would be allowed to publish the name even with the current
| court order. Basic 1st amendment precedent.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Kinda odd that they care so much then - like it's probably
| just some rich friends of SBF who were happy to put money up
| for an old friend, but didn't want their names plastered all
| over the news.
| xxpor wrote:
| Can't know until you find out though.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Old friend? The guys 20-something. How does he have "old
| friends" that can spring $250M for him overnight?
| acrispino wrote:
| He's out on a personal recognizance bond. Nobody put up
| $250M
| tedunangst wrote:
| Isn't the point of journalism to find out what's happening
| instead of making assumptions about what's probably
| happening?
| madrox wrote:
| I wonder how often such motions pass. It's obvious CoinDesk wants
| it so they can plaster the names on their website for views, so
| how does this weigh against a reasonable measure of privacy?
| These people haven't done anything illegal by signing sureties.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Not everything bad is illegal. This guy screwed a lot of people
| over, bailing him out (especially considering the price tag)
| was bullshit and the public deserves to know who thinks he
| should be out living a normal live and is willing to fork over
| the cash for it.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Pre-trial detainment is _definitionally_ not intended to be a
| punishment, but rather a means of ensuring a party is present
| at trial.
| yongjik wrote:
| And also ensuring that the party does not collude with
| accomplices to hide money and/or evidences. I'm not totally
| confident the bail's terms would keep SBF from doing that.
| notch656c wrote:
| Nah they place all sorts of restrictions that have nothing
| to do with helping show up at trial. For instance they may
| require you not use weed or an occasional glass of wine
| even though there's basically no material effect of such
| use on your showing up.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| >Even though there's basically no material effect of such
| use on your showing up.
|
| Disagree. There are plenty of correlations between
| intoxication and appearing at a certain place at a
| certain time in a condition of sound mind.
| notch656c wrote:
| The order is rarely against intoxication but rather
| consumption. Consuming a glass of wine and not getting
| intoxicated would violate many of these orders.
| [deleted]
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| Kevin O'Leary may be one...he's been supporting SBF even through
| the indictment.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Has he? From what I've seen, he backpedaled almost immediately.
| Everyone just seems pissed at him for taking $15M to be a
| spokesperson, but the moment FTX imploded he was calling for
| regulation and saying that no investors will be touching crypto
| exchanges till then.
|
| If he's actually been supporting SBF, I'd be curious to know.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Isn't SBF responsible for Kevin losing a decent chunk of
| money?
|
| How can you support somebody who loses you money? Does Kevin
| really believe SBF did it all on accident/got in over his
| head/didn't know he messed up until it was too late?
| Hamuko wrote:
| As far as I can see, SBF paid Kevin to be a spokesman for
| FTX, and he lost that money when FTX went down. I don't
| think he had personal investments in FTX beyond his
| reputation.
| mshake2 wrote:
| Watch his testimony before Congress about FTX. He says in no
| uncertain terms that the cause of the collapse was Binance.
| He's also stated early on in the collapse that he would back
| SBF again. He's a paid shill.
| JCharante wrote:
| I mean CZ did sell FTX Tokens didn't he? Add on that the
| main competitor of FTX dumped FTX Tokens on exchanges which
| drove down the price.
| mshake2 wrote:
| Now we're moving the goalposts into a separate
| discussion. The question was whether or not O'Leary
| supported SBF post collapse.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Thanks for pointing out O'Leary's testimony. I hadn't
| heard it.
| notch656c wrote:
| Have you watched the testimony? I encourage you to watch
| it. It's not just that he said those things, it's that he
| omitted much of the rest.
|
| As a third party observer his responses were just
| absolutely baffling. Whenever blame was pointed at Sam he
| seemed to say some variation "we need more data" or "we
| need <my brand> of regulation" or deflecting to
| Binance/CZ while not giving Binance the same benefit of
| "we need more data" that he gave to Sam.
|
| I've come to question if O'Leary is to SBF as Jeffry
| Picower was to Madoff. An entity who perhaps secretly
| knew but can never be proven to know and just looks like
| another victim.
| shapefrog wrote:
| > CZ did sell FTX Tokens
|
| Because he was concerned they were insolvent and were
| using customer funds to cover trading losses and buy
| penthouses.
|
| Turns out they were insolvent and using customer funds to
| cover trading losses and buying penthouses.
|
| Unless CZ held a gun to SBFs head and made him lever up,
| lose billions then double down, take customer funds to
| the casino and try to win back $10billion then its kinda
| hard to blame CZ.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-13 23:02 UTC)