the 'money is still there' narrative is so frustrating; even if people had gotten back 100% of their deposits (which, as you said, they did not), there is such an obvious harm to having money frozen for years ... the people getting that return are often wealthy investors who bought claims for a fraction of their value because they can afford to invest with uncertainty and a long time line, rather than retail investors who absolutely did not sign up to have their money tied up in an AI startup or whatever else.
It's an insanely dishonest argument to even tentatively float. But it has been deployed here as a coordinated distraction, which even seems to have worked on the New York Times' clueless FTX reporter. It does and should strip away the illusion that the media industry is concerned with facts. I've spent years hesitant to embrace attacks on "the mainstream media," but this has blackpilled me almost as thoroughly as the runup to Iraq. Utterly shameful. Luckily I get to write a whole book about it!
I'm not sure it's a "coordinated distraction" as much as the unsurprising revelation that a person who cannot see a cognitive self-manipulation in another person falls susceptible to a cognitive self manipulation themselves. SBF convinced himself that he is not a bad person for doing bad things because he, a priori, assumes he is not a bad person, and therefore he is not doing bad things. Those who did not see SBF was a bad person doing bad things cannot have been bad at seeing badness, as they, a priori, assume they are not bad at seeing badness, therefore they did not see badness. It's all plain-old cognitive dissonance to excuse/ignore that which is inconveniently contrary to their identity as a good person/reporter, with a healthy dash of doubling down.
the 'money is still there' narrative is so frustrating; even if people had gotten back 100% of their deposits (which, as you said, they did not), there is such an obvious harm to having money frozen for years ... the people getting that return are often wealthy investors who bought claims for a fraction of their value because they can afford to invest with uncertainty and a long time line, rather than retail investors who absolutely did not sign up to have their money tied up in an AI startup or whatever else.
It's an insanely dishonest argument to even tentatively float. But it has been deployed here as a coordinated distraction, which even seems to have worked on the New York Times' clueless FTX reporter. It does and should strip away the illusion that the media industry is concerned with facts. I've spent years hesitant to embrace attacks on "the mainstream media," but this has blackpilled me almost as thoroughly as the runup to Iraq. Utterly shameful. Luckily I get to write a whole book about it!
I'm not sure it's a "coordinated distraction" as much as the unsurprising revelation that a person who cannot see a cognitive self-manipulation in another person falls susceptible to a cognitive self manipulation themselves. SBF convinced himself that he is not a bad person for doing bad things because he, a priori, assumes he is not a bad person, and therefore he is not doing bad things. Those who did not see SBF was a bad person doing bad things cannot have been bad at seeing badness, as they, a priori, assume they are not bad at seeing badness, therefore they did not see badness. It's all plain-old cognitive dissonance to excuse/ignore that which is inconveniently contrary to their identity as a good person/reporter, with a healthy dash of doubling down.
Good way to put it