Just to be clear, this is the archive of a puff piece published on the Sequoia Capital website: they were talking up their book. They took it down when they wrote their investment in FTX down to $0 (from over $200mm). It was neither published recently nor by a MSM outlet.
There are hundreds of puffs pieces praising him in the MSM all the way till the day of the collapse, most of them VERY recently.
They are trying to shift blame and cover their butts.
The pivot now seems to be blaming CZ(the lazy China angle) for everything despite the obvious cause being the low effort diligence done by SV VCs and MSM themselves for recommending so many people into his trap.
Worst was how little oversight there was, Bankman Fried purposely deleted records and didn't hire anyone internally for simple tasks like accounting.
No surprise why, he was writing himself personal loans of billions while trying to bribe his way out of trouble both overseas and in the US.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30197457 (Feb 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26116840 (Feb 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22274517 (Feb 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195104 (Oct 2019)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19815709 (May 2019)
Your account has been hovering in bannability for a long time, and yes, an anti-Semitic trope (let's call it what we all know it is) is enough to push it over the finish line.
"... an anti-Semitic trope (let's call it what we all know it is) is enough to push it over the finish line."
What a huge assumption and massive misinterpretation by you. Holy hell.
You seem to be projecting that I must be Kayne West? I wasn't casually referencing Jewish people. Did I suggest ANYWHERE about Jewish people? No. I didn't. You made the assumption and then ban me on it.
I was being literal when I said to look at who has captured the mainstream media for your answers - and I didn't suggest nor was hinting at looking through a racial lens. Who would you put that as if asked that?
Do you know who I would put that as? If you look at the actual advertising revenues of MSM in the U.S. - it's something like 80% of ad revenues coming from the pharmaceutical industry; I'm sure if you search my comment history for "big pharma" you'll see plenty of distaste from me for that industry.
2) No "this is your final warning" message?
Firstly, as far as I remember I have only seen 2 of your "requests" replies in the past - and I remember the one email thread/interaction we had awhile ago.
I don't always check to see for responses to my comments, or not necessarily thoroughly if I do glance at comment history.
Don't you think it'd be the responsible, reasonable, and the fair thing to do is warn a person by email and/or confirm they have seen them - especially since there aren't Notifications as part of the HN interface? Don't you find it problematic in UI/UX that this isn't the case - that it's a failure in design to not highlight important messages from you?
3) I hope you'll unban me as I'm formally requesting here, especially as your premise for what "push[ed] it over the finish line" was a wrong assumption on your part.
I have Jewish ancestors and my grandfathers fought in both world wars - and I'll withhold the rest of my commentary as to how offensive your assertion is.
Otherwise now that I know you've requested/"warned" 5 previous times - and now that I know I'm "hovering in bannability" - I'll tone everything down.
I'd also highly recommend implementing a new mechanism to guarantee a commenter sees your comments/warnings. Maybe some kind of a 'prompt' or 'notify' flag that you hit that alerts to an unavoidable message to see your comment - or just everyone gets notified of your comments?
Maybe it'll make whomever you're warning take your requests/warnings more seriously as well - but at minimum it will guarantee they've seen it, and then there's a much higher probability they'll check their behaviour if they've actually seen your messages.
If flags set by you then perhaps a required confirmation by the user that 'yes, I've seen this warning/request' - and disabling commenting features until they click that they've seen it? That way you can also have a record and a situation can't arise where they claim they didn't see the majority of them - like I am claiming now, however that is the truth.
I hope you'll acknowledge your mistake and undo the action you took based on that mistake.
I've also emailed this to you.
Please make sure you're up on the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them from now on. I believe you that you didn't intend your comment the way I took it, but it's not surprising that I (and others) would have misinterpreted it, given that (1) it was an edgy one-liner on a divisive topic in a flamewar thread and (2) your account's history of breaking the site guidelines leads one to certain priors. If you start being scrupulous about staying within the guidelines and posting substantive comments, such misinterpretations will be far less likely.
When it comes to internet comments, it's important to realize that your intent doesn't communicate itself—you have to encode it in your message. Otherwise readers will fill in the blanks with their own version of your intent. No doubt there will be a broad spectrum of different interpretations, but when thousands of readers are looking at your posts, the extreme ends of that spectrum are bound to be represented. In other words, by statistics alone, some people are going to assume that you meant something shocking, and they will be the ones most likely to reply. This is how we end up with the sort of misunderstanding that shocks the original commenter ("What a huge assumption and massive misinterpretation by you. Holy hell.")
I'm not telling you this to reargue the current case but to make a general point for the future: the burden is on you as a commenter to disambiguate your intent (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). If you apply that principle in the future, then at least this sort of misunderstanding will be mitigated.