[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.

[crazygringo]

Well could you please explain the side you think they are taking, what the other side is, and what kinds of facts support that side?

Because I honestly don't know them. Claiming an article is "this biased" doesn't help anyone here if you don't explain why.

[walkhour]

A non biased article would've mentioned how much Bitcoin mining accounts for the total energy used in US. And that would've been compared to the energy used in other industries. Take videogames for example. Just that datum would've changed the whole narrative of the article. The article does mention something in passing about how other industries at least bring jobs. I guess that's a net positive then.

Were the authors aware of how tiny Bitcoin usage is and how much waste there is going around? Of course they were. Was this datum useful to the reader? Yes. Did the authors purposefully decide to exclude this datum because it didn't fit the narrative? Of course.

Just imagine your average reader, if at the end of the article they were told, that we can't even agree on whether Bitcoin mining consumes more power than Christmas lights. Apparently that was not the case using the 2008 Christmas lights usage, and we don't know now, because both sides of the argument get wildly different values.

Your average reader leaves the article thinking they know everything they need to know about Bitcoin: it's bad because it makes energy more expensive, and people have died, possibly because energy was expensive.