Topic: Was *anyone* contacted by "Barely Sociable" to research their video? - page 2. (Read 639 times)

Nope and nope.

TBH I've only had one member of the 'press' try to contact me about anything Bitcoin ever!

That was a journalist from the Verge in 2013 asking about Pizzas.

Private 2-way communication is private 2-way communication.

...

Re: Pizza for bitcoins?
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1183

Re: Welcome to the new Bitcoin forum!
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.188

 

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Ming

Maybe you're right, but a total newbie looking for Bitcoin should find many other different sources, whether Duckduckgo, google, bing, whatever. They should at least be looking at Bitcoin first. I can't recall ever seeing other than Bitcoin unless I go to Bitcoin.com or surf Twitter.

And if these guys surf Twitter and believe in influencers rather than the white paper, or what's obvious, well, that's the audience, after all.

But is it truly its intended audience? I believe their target-audience are newbies, easily scammed, and who would be thankful that they have "found Bitcoin", https://twitter.com/andrespollan/status/1185455536084541441

IMO talking about Satoshi is still popular, it gets you viewes. Add to that a bit of suspense and make the video look like there's some big consipracy with huge money in play, add some well known names from the scene and you have an explosive mixture that's going to make you money one way or the other.
However you look at it and whatever you do to debunk it, the plan worked out well for Barely Sociable. The video made almost 300k views in 2 weeks and is still being discussed.
I know that it's full of gaps and you know it too, but the average wiever does not.

You can see he's playing his conspiracy theory card and making himself look like the innocent victim, just a whistleblower suppressed by rich corporations.

Maybe that's why he's buying, paying more preachers to speak and spread the "fake gospel" to more and more fleeceable people, it's possible for a news to gain more credibility and traction to people who care less to research deep into it, when it's coming from more people other than the initial propagator. This pseudonymous writer is definitely working with Roger, or it may even be Roger cloning himself to sing more lies to the ears of his ever listening bunch of choirs.

I've managed to somehow stay out of that vein of topic for a while now, but no, video is new to me, and it does seem insensible journalism (of whatever sort) to quote someone who would be utterly surprised to learn about the quotes only when viewing the video.


Except that what works in normal and healthy debates that agree to use deductive logic to come to conclusions (or agree that there cannot be conclusions without enough clear deductions). But it won't when one side is quite clearly ignoring what's been debunked.

Problem is, as you say, the audience they're selling to quite clearly won't be the audience convinced. He's preaching to a choir who don't want to sing any other rhythm.

It's obviously another troll-job. But what's so important about this video that you need to know who were contacted by the creator?


I hope the video recorded his "Segwit disadoption talk". Hahaha.

He probably didn't reach out to anyone. Often they will mention that in their video if they did IE I reached out to x for comment but he declined or he gave me this statement in response etc. It would have been pretty easy to get in contact with a lot of people in the video as many post publicly here or elsewhere, but with that being said most people would have probably just ignored requests from a random youtbuer.


This is probably close. By 'researched' he probably just means he read a lot of threads and websites and watched some other youtube videos and made his mind up on second-hand information and conspiracies. He clearly didn't do that much research or fact-checking as there are several inaccuracies, but it's probably one of those cases where he just wants the juiciest accusations and conspiracy theories to be true as often the truth is far more boring so there will be inherent bias. There are lots of these sorts of 'true crime' youtubers that do the same, and their research is usually limited to wikipedia articles and tittle-tattle.

Reading the comments of the video he seems to have a lot of fanboys who will believe anything he says regardless of truth and anyone who disputes it is a hater or has something to hide. I saw one comment from a user with 500+ likes saying how stupid wikipedia are for not allowing these sorts of videos as sources for things. I mean really? That video is exactly why they shouldn't. If wiki allowed these sorts of youtube videos as sources the world would be flat and Craig Wright would be Satoshi on wikipedia.

I suspect "original research" (in whatever language it is people seem to be speaking in 2020) probably translates to "read one website and arrived at the wrong conclusion".  We can probably guess whose website they were reading by their "findings".  Probably best not to waste too much time questioning the level of journalistic integrity in YouTube videos. They want views and subscribers, not accuracy.

One challenge I found is that there is just so much BS in it that if you debunk any single thing they still feel the evidence is overwhelming.

I found it works better to have the person you're talking to pick something out and then just go debunk what they picked.


Right, they show flashes of things but the viewers couldn't find them from the flashes. I also found it helpful to link to the videos own sources, many of which were just rbtc threads which themselves directly contained comments that refuted the video's claims.


I think there is always the possibility of getting the video's author to go publicly transparent.  Decoding the 'mystery' of his own video would be pretty entertaining and traffic generating. As you note, his audience isn't coming to him for hard hitting serious journalism, so they're not likely to view it as a breach of trust.

These YouTube "journalists" (using that word with a fair bit of generosity here) will usually have other people do the legwork for them when it comes to advanced topics or rabbit holes that go deep.
If you were a famous YouTube persona posting such kind of vids, there'd always be at least one of your fans willing to help. Sometimes it's pure luck that they find a person well versed in the topic and also willing enough to reveal to them information that would otherwise require painstaking research. By the rate those videos are released, there's simply no way he does the research alone anyway.

The YouTuber has the advantage here, because they can claim having an anonymous source or sources they can not disclose. Credibility of information matters very little in a platform like YouTube. Most people watch this type of video for entertainment anyway. The target audience is made obvious by the simple fact that no explicit sources are revealed behind most claims. Contrast that to let's say an academic paper; if a research paper was to be released without detailed references to claims it made, it would have never been published.

However, the fact that this channel in specific is focused on entertainment and doesn't put much weight on journalistic ethic or proper research, leaves the door open to bad things happening. What happened with the video on bitcoin is a great example. It wouldn't be unlikely that someone fed the YouTuber information with malice. It also wouldn't be unlikely that the YouTuber was paid under the table to release such information. We'll never truly know. (Although, seeing how said YouTuber kept defending his video and playing the victim after receiving criticism, the second hypothesis appears more likely). It could be a combination of both though.

Target audience is also kind of the problem. Due to the channel having nothing to do with crypto, many among its fans were introduced to bitcoin with these falsehoods. And while the truth is out there, the lack of overlap between the communities is probably going to make it so the regular viewers of that channel are unlikely to stumble upon what's true. We're never going to know the extent of the damage that was done, as some if not all of these people that weren't aware of bitcoin prior could be indifferent to these details anyway. Not to downplay the potential effect such misinformation could have though. If we let popular channels get overflown with disinfo without any resistance, then bitcoin surely could take a hit.  

We might not be able to calculate the potential extent of the damage done by such a misinformation campaign, but it's better to stand against it anyway. And our best bet to counter this type of misinformation is to fight it head to head. Get out of our bubble in bitcointalk.org and r/bitcoin where everyone agrees that the video was trash, and jump on twitter, YouTube and other forums, where people watching such videos are most likely to see it and make simple and coherent, ideally non-technical and well sourced rebuttals.

A 40 minute long high production value video by a pseudonymous author was recently published that regurgitated a number of Roger Ver's false statements about the history of Bitcoin and topped it off with a bullshit claim about the identity of bitcoin's creator.  

The video has been previously discussed on Bitcointalk at some length. (I wouldn't recommend watching it unless you want to both waste time and make yourself dumber)

Weirdly, the creator is claiming their research was "original".

Problem is even beyond the fact that it copies the Ver/Falkvinge playbook almost exactly, I can't find anyone that was contacted or interviewed by them. In particular, none of the people who were discussed in the video that I've asked had heard from them. I certainly wasn't contacted (and I'm mentioned in the video a number of times). Had they contacted me (or any of many of the other people they smear in the video) they likely would have been pointed to places where their material had already been debunked.

(although they actually showed screenshots of reddit threads that themselves had comprehensive debunkings, so maybe it wouldn't have mattered.)

So is there anyone that heard from them as part of the "research" they supposedly conducted?  If so, would you be willing to share the content of your communication?  Keep in mind, the video went on at some length that there was no reason for people to keep Satoshi's emails private (a position I strongly disagree with)-- so sharing their communications even without their consent would only be acting consistently with the moral principles they expose themselves.