[walkhour]

Simply a cold blooded, profoundly biased, partisan piece of the most outrageous propaganda on Bitcoin.

> By the end of Feb. 14, 2021, nearly 40 people had died, some from the freezing cold.

And you know what? These deaths may not have happened if it wasn't because of Bitcoin.

I look forward to the NYTimes' take on the Christmas lights. Maybe they can somehow let the reader infer someone has died because they made electricity more expensive.

[survirtual]

Don’t you know?

It is Bitcoin’s fault Texas has a neglected power grid and a wildly corrupt power industry that does not use profit to update and maintain their grid. It is Bitcoin’s fault that when their grid failed, their prices skyrocketed further exploiting Texans, while people died from the cold. It is Bitcoin’s fault that Texans have made no real change since this event has happened, neither politically nor with infrastructure, and held none of the leaders in industry nor politicians accountable. It is Bitcoin’s fault that the power industry has an outrageous lobby funneling money from their customers right into the pockets of politicians, to avoid wasting profits on doing their job. It is Bitcoin’s fault that everyone up and down the chain of supply excessively squeezes every ounce of profit from the public without any shame, guilt, or consequence and without contributing an iota of the value they claim to be offering. It is Bitcoin’s fault that the countless billions in the US that go into the power industry are squandered in fraud, waste, and abuse instead of modernization and clean energy.

It is all Bitcoin’s fault. Ban Bitcoin before people paid outrageous sums of money might be forced to actually do their jobs.

[crazygringo]

You are misreading the article. It is not blaming Bitcoin for deaths at all, or even suggesting that. That sentence was clearly simply to illustrate that it was a bad storm, not an everyday one.

I don't see what's biased or partisan or outrageous at all. It seems like quite a researched and fact-based article to me. And I don't even know what "cold blooded" is supposed to mean.

Perhaps you're having such a strong emotional reaction because you don't like the article's findings? But I can't tell, since you haven't actually responded to the factual claims at all.

[walkhour]

The factual claims are accurate. The implications are not. Only one side of the story is told. You can outright lie with a stream of facts, and that's the approach of hit pieces like this.

I said cold blooded because the authors are aware of how they mislead, and do it nevertheless, because they have an agenda, otherwise an article can't be this biased.

[lisasays]

You can say the piece was biased if you want.

But to apply the description "cold-blooded" seems, well, quite weird.