Topic: Was *anyone* contacted by "Barely Sociable" to research their video? (Read 663 times)

I believe the flat-Earthers of Bitcoin didn't give the people who are actually concerned, and who actually care any choice.

There are trolls who don't know they have become trolls.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/g373di/comment/fnvn75x

No arguments there.  All I'm saying is, don't shout louder than the crazy person, or people might mistake you for one and the same.

Call out the lies and deceptions where you see them, but just keep in mind not to take it too far.  I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, heh.  It's all good.

As long as we're not taking a "we need to convert people to the light side before they can convert them to the dark side" kind of mentality, because that's a slippery slope.  We're not able to stop every last person making a poor choice.  And ramping up pro-BTC hype in an attempt to drown out the forkcoin rhetoric has notable and significant pitfalls.

I'm not "evangelizing", I'm telling the people the right information from the trolls' gaslighting and disinformation. You cannot simply ignore it.

Or this, https://twitter.com/andrespollan/status/1185455536084541441

And that's valid, but for the uninitiated, you might as well be talking about sorcery, heh.  They could mistakenly perceive us as a cult or something.  Maybe I'm too cautious, but lately I just feel like it's better to let people get there on their own rather than us acting like evangelists and trying to convert them.  

But is it "just a belief", or a natural progression, because of the technology available to us? Satoshi didn't actually "invent" anything. He used accessible open source technologies, and discovered that he could develop a breakthrough. It was natural progression in my opinion.

I guess the answer is a bit like the one I'd give to religious people.  There's a limit to how hard you can push your beliefs onto others.  It's fair to say that Faketoshi and Ver often cross that line in how far they push to sell their beliefs.  We don't want to come across as shady used car salesmen who would say just about anything to rope someone in like they do.  Basically just use common sense.

Would it be considered "adopting the opposite extreme" if a person believes that Bitcoin is actually an evolution of money, and a part of society's progression?

https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/

I can see the temptation when witnessing the extremism of Faketoshi to then adopt the opposite extreme, but that's seldom a healthy path.  We can easily combat the FUD without overselling the benefits of Bitcoin.  It's generally best to maintain a healthy dose of realism, since this is all still a little bit experimental.  

There's almost a potential of legitimising your opponent if you begin to resort to the same style of tactics they use.  Avoid lowering yourself to their level.  We don't need to become militant or adopt high-pressure sales tactics.  That's just going to put people off and make them think we're as crazy as Faketoshi.
  

Then there are people like Craig Wright, from Bitcoin's flat-earth community, who tell you to sell your Bitcoin, maybe to them, to HODL an alt-alt-shitcoin, and they gaslight you that it's the "real Bitcoin". That's who we should be more concerned about.

I wouldn't tell people to sell their house to buy Bitcoin, but if Bitcoin is truly our hedge/fall-back/opt out mechanism in case the government can't maintain economic stability anymore. Then I believe selling the house to HODL Bitcoin MIGHT not be a bad proposition.

Um no, I'm referencing your Carlos Matos share. There are copies of him out there just telling people to go sell their houses and go all in on Bitcoin and selling it like it's a ponzi. That's who I'm more concerned about because then we get all kinds of people buying "Bitcoin" on apps and exchanges thinking they actually have Bitcoin and that it's going to revolutionise their shit and get them lambos and hos.

Maybe if we get less of them we'd not get people borrowing from banks to buy Bitcoin and then face jail cause they defaulted when someone forgot to tell them Bitcoin won't make them overnight millionaires.

You can leave Roger Ver alone, scamming people, but you want actual Bitcoiners to stop telling newbies that Bitcoin is Bitcoin Core?

We (Real Bitcoin BTC supporters) should create a website called Bitcoin, "BitcoinThetruth.com" or something similar.. where opportunity is given under proper moderation to debunk this kind of misinformation. Someone can post a questionable article or link and then people with proper knowledge can post links to the facts to debunk it.

There should be a army of Bitcoin (BTC) supporters that are actively debunking content like this. People should report it on this platform and then if there are opportunities to reply or comment on these articles, then this army should go there and spam it with the truth. (Most of these people disable the comments or they just use media where there are no options to debate it)  

Should someone read this article and then decide to Google more information about it, then they might land on this website where this is debunked.    (Something similar to https://badbitcoin.org/ badlist to show people what sites are scams)

Lawls Carlos Matos, you know he's all cleaned up and admitted he lost money and all that yeah? They don't wise up though, they just wash rinse and repeat but anyway, I'm less worried about guys like him and Ver gaslighting people... I tend to believe over time that people who fall for scams will fall for them anyway no matter how much we try to prevent it. We can delay it but perhaps the faster they learn, the better for them.

It's the guys who actually ARE promoting Bitcoin with the exact same language I wish would pipe down a bit more=p

It's for the community to educate the newbies too, and it's very important that they get their information from the RIGHT PEOPLE first. OR someone named Kevin Pham/Roger Ver will gaslight them into believing that BSV is the real Bitcoin, or BCH is the real Bitcoin.

Oh, for us, it can't be plainer than plain. I guess I meant to say that, compared to when I first tried looking up information in 2013, and when I actually looked to get my first BTC in 2016, looking online for the newbie today might not be as straightforward. I think the CW issue's plain as well, but it appears it isn't for some people. I don't know how it'll look for a n00b either.

It's not, concerning "if Craig Wright is actually Satoshi". He's a con-artist, a Borat-like character created to take your Bitcoin away from your hands, in exchange for what? A forked alt-altcoin, forked from a forked shitcoin. Hooray!

I think it should be seen as a propaganda video for BCH & BSV I think most of us know by now these shit coin creators are doing nothing more than trying to manipulate the true history of bitcoin to there narrative for financial gain.

After the bombshell dropped on Craig with those addresses being signed I think we will see more false claims surface over the next few months as things heat up but I think a lot of people now are starting to see what there real agenda's are.

@Greg I saw this surface today on Twitter and wondered if this was a fake or a legit email.



I see it making the rounds on twitter today but you can never be too sure if it's a fake or not I would have expected if it was real to have PGP which I don't see in the email which raised questions.

Keep up the good work everyone  BSV + BCH won't and can't keep up this fraud much longer.

I agree it's usually who you get to see or talk to first that forms the strongest opinion, and when I first got it, there was really little or no threat to see anything other than Bitcoin.

Got to admit it's not such a straight path to Rome these days. But the deficiency of ease of access has always been there I think. What's new is more things to obscure the access, harder now to see the line between misinformation.

I TRULY hope that the "total newbie" WOULD verify for themselves, but many don't in my opinion. It depends on who in the community talks to them first. If Roger talks to them first, he tells them to buy Bitcoin in, https://www.bitcoin.com.

Click "Buy Bitcoin", what do you see?

Plus, there's a deficiency of education for Bitcoin topics, especially in the forum. Check my "Bitcoin Education Poll".

Under a different name "Slightly Sociable" they posted rather long response to what they were not able to defend their actions to what they were saying on the explanation by tone vays and jimmy song of why Adam could not be satoshi.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unmasking-satoshi-nakamoto-surfaces-and-talks-about-members-of-this-forum-5248801
I will rename the thread to "slightly sociable on reactions to his video".

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.