Continuing the conversation: We should add Roger Ver to the Press page.

[jonwaller]

The previous issue of the content of the Press page has been closed, and the content pushed. To not endlessly argue, and actually get something live, I think this is great.

The issue was closed with the message:

"The Press center has been merged. All points of contention has been addressed and the texts has been deeply reviewed. Any further change can be done via a separate Github issue."

---

Here is that issue. I would like to strongly suggest that Roger Ver be added to the press page, and thought we could use this issue to argue our points.

My argument:

Roger Ver is an excellent and experienced speaker, with the ability to speak at the right level for his audience. He is well-known in the community, and has a good reputation.
He has invested in many Bitcoin projects, and is well connected with many Bitcoin businesses.

Here are some videos:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2297014298001/should-bitcoin-be-regulated/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4d_29vJlB4

Because of these reasons, I believe Roger Ver should be added to the press page.

With regards to Jon Matonis, I think he is an adequate speaker, but a stronger writer. I have no strong feelings either way on his inclusion on the press page.

[jgarzik]

Does Ver still give interviews to The Daily Anarchist and other anarchist publications, and otherwise continue to espouse fringe anarchism PoV? http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/11/12/bitcoin-venture-capitalist-roger-vers-journey-to-anarchism/

[saivann]

For the interviews I've seen (I didn't see a lot of them), he was doing a great job. One of my concerns about Roger Ver was that journalists could use this against him and against the legitimacy of Bitcoin as a whole : http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/press-releases/2002/verPlea.htm

[sunnankar]

@jgarzik, your question has an implicit assumption that political ideology should be among the factors applied as a standard for inclusion.

I think the goal of this Press center should be to make the press's job easier and the standard used for inclusion should be competence and professionalism along with established reputations in the Bitcoin community. I do not see why political ideology is relevant or should be used for any type of test or standard for inclusion.

Consequently, I am not sure what relevance there is with whether someone does interviews for Mother Jones, FOX News, Daily Anarchist, Infowars, Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, etc. Journalism is about the marketplace of ideas and the more ideas the larger the marketplace. Ideally, we would have this Press center populated with competent and professional speakers who can present both objectively and subjectively to all audiences. Then it would have the widest possible reach. And from what I understand Bitcoin has users and supports from all across the spectrum and demographics.

Additionally, I think that using political ideology as a test or standard for inclusion will be a disservice to the journalists who visit this page seeking guests or commentators for pieces they are writing or segments they are producing.

For example, I recently heard FOX Business was putting together a piece on Bitcoin and the political ramifications. If FOX is going to present in a debate type format with members of the three main political parties in the United States, the Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians (also known as Anarchists), then how would this Press page assist those journalists if it has purged the competent and professional Libertarian individuals like Jon Matonis or Roger Ver merely on the basis of political ideology?

[sunnankar]

@saivann, I do think Mr. Ver's conviction in 2002 for storing and selling explosive fireworks is a material issue to be discussed and I briefly outlined two sides to the case.

AGAINST INCLUSION
The criminal record could be used to taint arguments against Bitcoin by showing that one of the community's most ardent proponents is a convicted criminal and Bitcoin should be opposed or stop in order to keep people safe.

But this type of argument by the press would be a logical fallacy of association and an appeal to emotion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). Nevertheless, the press can act in a way to mould public opinion irrespective of the underlying logic or facts. And the press has stronger facts to use such as Silk Road since it involves current activities.

Notwithstanding, for those reasons Mr. Ver should not be included. If there are additional reasons then please articulate them.

I am only concerned about Bitcoin as a whole and rather unconcerned about the use of the conviction against Mr. Ver on a personal basis as he can pull up his big boy pants and handle himself. Plus, as discussed in the for inclusion section, he could frame the argument in a way that is could help mitigate the damage for both himself and Bitcoin.

FOR INCLUSION
Mr. Ver's conviction happened while he was a young adult, is stale since it is over ten years old, was relatively minor because it involved neither violence nor moral turpitude such as fraud and resulted in only 10 months of jail time, a $2,000 fine and some probation.

A stated intent of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation. Mr. Ver has, to the best of my knowledge, not been convicted of anything else since and has not become a repeat offender. To the contrary, he has built a reputable and profitable company, Memory Dealers, that does millions of dollars of gross revenue with several employees, has been tax compliant and has invested and provided guidance to several Bitcoin companies. Absent the conviction, Mr. Ver would be a great role model. With the conviction, he is a fine example of rehabilitation by showing what those who have had a criminal record can do to become legitimate, useful, productive and contributing members of society.

Additionally, if the press wants to disparage Bitcoin regardless of logic or facts and instead appeal to emotion then who we suggest to them as Potential Interviewees is irrelevant because they will find whoever they want anyway to craft the narrative they want. On the contrary, if Mr. Ver wanted to engage in further criminal activity then he would likely not be seeking such a public profile by running a successful company or giving interviews with FOX Business and other media outlets.

Additionally, while I am not sure whether Mr. Ver was wrongfully convicted, Ohio State University reported that annually over 10,000 innocent people are convicted of serious crimes.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

Consequently, Mr. Ver's inclusion would be beneficial because he exemplifies rehabilitation which is a very positive message to be sent, is an articulate and competent speaker who also has business and managerial experience and exclusion for a stale conviction is based merely on an appeal to emotion but not a weighing of the benefits and potential risks resulting from the underlying facts and logic.

[jgarzik]

Sadly, someone turned the Press page into An Issue, by posting to reddit and the forum.

I would suggest a cool-down period, before bothering with this subject again.

[bitcoinstore]

@jgarzik, I think the free discussion of ideas is a good thing. I don't see anyone getting out of line or overly emotional about any of this. I've posted a reply as well: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1893085#msg1893085

Roger Ver

[sunnankar]

@jgarzik, I think you, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, you want to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.

I think the goal of this Press center should be to make the press's job easier and the standard used for inclusion should be competence and professionalism along with established reputations in the Bitcoin community. I do not see why political ideology is relevant or should be used for any type of test or standard for inclusion.

It appears, implicitly in your argument, that you want to politicize the Press center by making political ideology relevant as a test for inclusion. As a professional journalist myself I think that using political ideology as a test or standard for inclusion will be a disservice to the other journalists who visit this page seeking guests or commentators for pieces they are writing or segments they are producing.

Since your argument is politically motivated, using political ideas as a standard for inclusion, therefore I doubt this issue will just go away after a 'cool-down period' and therefore needs to be addressed by logic and reason. Consequently, if you could please present the reasoning for your argument I think it would go a long way.

[bendiken]

As someone who was persuaded to adopt Bitcoin by Jon Matonis's voluminous and eloquent output on the subject, and as someone who admires Roger Ver for his integrity and significant contributions to the project, I think any effort to censor these two eminent gentlemen based on political views can be considered nothing short of shameful. Both Matonis and Ver are excellent and effective spokesmen for the project and, self-evidently, ought to be featured in any press section on Bitcoin.org.

[psyvisions]

why aren't jgarzik, gmaxwell and lukejr concerned about having a religious extremist who include/s/d prayers on the blockchain itself on the dev team but are so concerned about Roger Ver or Jon Matonis giving interviews is the real question.

[saivann]

In don't have much time, but in a few words :

@sunnankar jgarzik, gmaxwell and luke-jr were not the first to NACK, let's not try to point one person as the issue. @psyvisions luke-jr is not in the press center and didn't ask to be and his voice doesn't count more, or less, than others let's not mix things more.

To anyone : please give some space and time for others to answer. We must respect each others time and arguments. Please try to keep short in your arguments. Otherwise this thread will very soon become bloated and impossible to work with reasonnably.

[jonwaller]

Short argument. The new press page will say:
"The Bitcoin community has individuals who hold a wide spectrum of business experience or involvement, political ideas, personal opinions, technical competency and style. [...] However, an individual's appearance here should not be misconstrued to be a general endorsement by either the Bitcoin community or any particular individuals with regards to potential interviewees and any business they may operate, political or personal ideas they may expound, prognostications about Bitcoin or the price or any other topic." (My emphasis)

Thus I think we should include or exclude only on communicative competence and reputation within the Bitcoin community. On this basis, Jon Matonis and Roger Ver should both be included.

[jrmithdobbs]

By that logic we should add weev to the press page as well. He loves bitcoins and has been in the news lots, that's enough rite guys?!

(To be 100% clear: weev should not be added to the press page.)

[markdavidlamb]

@jgarzik One thing that you will eventually realise is that it's not up to you, or anyone in this discussion whether or not Roger Ver or Jon Matonis are spokesman for bitcoin. It's not up to you or anyone here whether I become a spokesman for bitcoin, or whether someone with socialist, communist, democrat, republican, libertarian, anarchist or any other political/religious/scientific/philosophic views becomes a spokesman for bitcoin. The fact that he is included on the "Press" section in the long run doesn't matter - he will still speak on behalf of Bitcoin.

If you try to centralise the authority of this "Bitcoin Core Development Team", then you will find that you are attempting to hurt bitcoin, and the community will not allow that. A huge portion of bitcoin users are Anarchists, but the fact of the matter is that bitcoin is completely open source, there is no organisation backing it or controlling it - and an attempt to change that will destroy the value of the currency. Also @jgarzik - describing his political opinions as "fringe" or "extremism" is illogical, bigoted and morally wrong. A small minority of people in the US are democrats and republicans and furthermore, the US is a small portion of the people in the world. Bitcoin is global and it does not discriminate based on political views or geographic location. It would be good for you to realise this.

[zbyte64]

In the interests of keeping a clear history of this issue; Roger Ver was removed with the following commit:
a2b501d
comment:
"Remove Roger Ver from interviewees list
(for making public statements that go beyond what can be reasonably associated with bitcoin.org)"

I cannot find any issue associated to that commit so it seems while his re-admission was thoroughly discussed his (second) removal was not. Citations to the public statements in question would be relevant. Are we back to excluding people we don't agree with politically?