Adding Jon Matonis to Bitcoin Press Center

[aantonop]

Adding Jon Matonis to Bitcoin Press Center

[ghost]

I agree. However, I thin the people controlling the domain have their mind set and they are saying stuff that is really not true. I did not know who Jon Matonis was before all this except I have heard name associated with hush mail. Now saivann is claiming people would not be removed unless they start promoting illegal activities, etc. I have been reviewing his videos and I don't much that is that radical. I don't know what is going on but the whole thing is rather strange.

[saivann]

Restoring a few links digged out by gmaxwell :

Bitcoin challenges the State as monetary sovereign and that has grave implications for their monetary authority and quasi-peaceful taxing authority
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/01/28/government-ban-on-bitcoin-would-fail-miserably/)

Almost simultaneously with the recent jihad against tax dodgers, decentralized cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin arrived on the scene in early 2009 and now provide an outlet for personal wealth that is beyond restriction and confiscation.
(http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/bitcoin-and-the-rebirth-of-financial-safe-havens-1058216-1.html)

(Edited, re-tweet and partly wrongly assigned quotes removed)

[aantonop]

I don't really care about the back-and-forth. Matonis does good work. Better than some I see on this page, but that's my personal opinion. At the very least include him. Otherwise drop the whole page, it is arbitrary and capricious.

The rest is ego and personal politics, and therefore not relevant to the issue.

[aantonop]

All appropriate articles for their respective forum. Context matters.

I think those links are irrelevant, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is different.

Does your opinion trump mine (and that of dozens who have made this point) because you control the domain? It seems to come down to that.

If the only justification is the articles above, I ask that the pull request be merged immediately.

[aantonop]

I'd also like to point out that there is a massive qualitative difference between using the control over the domain to selectively add people to the press center, your friends and favorite pundits or those you agree with, and using that control to purposefully exclude someone you disagree with.

When too many people are on the page, the journalists have to decide for themselves and exercise their own discretion (same as the status quo if they do a google search).

When you exclude people from the page, capriciously, you are imposing your opinion over the objections of many in the community and you are precluding the exercise of judgment by the journalists.

Not even close to being the same thing.

Whatever you want to call it, it is content and opinion driven censorship through control of the medium. That's disgusts me.

The argument that anyone can "fork" and do their own thing is also a complete red herring. To deny that domain stickiness is power and control, or that bitcoin.org carries authority as a domain is to condescend to the people who disagree as complete naive idiots.

[ghost]

@saivann I don't see any real issues with the links you provided. @gmaxwell apparently has a habit of trying to distort people's views so he can paint them as bad so I would not take his advice.

[saivann]

Actually, I was preparing an open debate by restoring some essential part of previous discussions. But even before someone could start the discussion (it's often good to let a day for people to comment), this issue already contains agressive claims or insults. So please don't point at me if this discussion don't produce any constructive result when I'm trying to help you.

[luke-jr]

Promoting Matonis is liable to increase the probability that major States ban Bitcoin, thus killing the project. This one important basis outweighs anything in his favour.

[aantonop]

I feel strongly about censorship. Extraordinary actions require extraordinary justification.

@saivann "I was preparing an open debate by restoring some essential part of previous discussions". Is that what you call dropping a dump of prejudicious and out-of-context quotes? That's not preparing an open debate, that's attempting to shut it down.

You closed the previous pull request discussing this topic, so you bet I will point right at YOU, @saivann

If you want to help, then either offer extraordinary justification or merge the request. At this point since you have demonstrated a personal animus and bias against Matonis, by attempting to prejudice the conversation with your little "preparing open debate" you should recuse yourself from this decision.

[luke-jr]

Censorship is off-topic here. Nobody is being censored. Matonis is just as free to speak as he has been in the past. Freedom to NOT speak (by not promoting him) is just as important (I'd argue more important) than his free speech.

[aantonop]

@luke-jr That is an extraordinary claim without any proof.

Promoting Matonis will cause the second coming of Jesus, which is why he should be immediately added. See two can do that.

You want to include someone, you need to show they have a record of speaking publicly and mostly intelligently about bitcoin.

To keep someone off the list, you need much more proof that some vague scary threats of impending doom.

Censorship requires a much higher burden. you are not even close to meeting.

[aantonop]

@luke-jr Controlling access to a medium, that whether you like it or not represents bitcoin, based on a personal opinion, despite plenty of objections, is censorship.

Stop playing with words. If it is not censorship, then merge my pull request.

[luke-jr]

It's not an extraordinary claim at all. When Matonis goes around basically begging States to ban Bitcoin, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that's likely to increase the chance that they actually do.

[aantonop]

That's your opinion. I think he adds a lot to the discussion. Why is your opinion the gatekeeper?

We disagree. Let the journalists and the community decide. Merge my pull request

[aantonop]

I'd consider the statement " Matonis goes around basically begging States to ban Bitcoin" to be slander.

Dropping to that level, only shows a personal animus and bias. You should recuse yourself from this discussion and decision, @luke-jr if you have a personal animus against Matonis.

[flix1]

Agree. Matonis is a big asset for Bitcoin. He deserves to be on that page, if only as thanks for his tireless support over the years.

Understanding that Bitcoin's success has political implications is just having your eyes open. If you think that "playing dead" is going to make you invulnerable to attacks from regulators you are living in fantasyland.

[flix1]

Also @saivann attributes several quotes to matonis which are not even his... the drug cartels one is from Jeffrey Tucker and he is just quoting... something extremely easy to check out if he had just followed the links. Another one is a quote from Julia Dixon.

This is either sloppy or malicious. Context is important, but also quoting correctly.

[aantonop]

@flix1
Did you not notice, @saivann was trying to "prepare an open debate". The best way to do that is to first make it very difficult for the community to join, to then close all pull requests that are getting too many opposing voices and then to "prepare an open debate" by cherry picking quotes out of context, when someone creates a new pull request.

I'm glad this process is not arbitrary and capricious.

@saivann You are completely transparent. You're not fooling anyone, but you're certainly making yourself look foolish.

[aantonop]

Are we done here? @luke-jr and @saivann have both shown that they are personally biased.

Is someone else with commit-access willing to merge this pull request, or should we keep pretending that this is a "deliberation process" and not just a meaningless charade?

[emansipater]

I feel this whole conversation gets hostile because the two main camps are talking about two different things. On the one side we have people saying,

"Jon is a good guy, don't cross him off a list just because you disagree with him."

And on the other side we have people saying,

"Jon Matonis shouldn't be a press contact for the same reason Richard Stallman shouldn't be a press contact. He does good work for his cause, and his interests are aligned with Bitcoin, but his intentional choice to live above or outside of social norms brings a distracting element that other people won't have. (distractions matter in press)"

What I would like to see here is for people who identify with one side of that divide more than the other to post cogent examinations of the side they haven't been advocating for. And let's be especially careful to drop the polarizing language, because there's been a lot of it here.

[aantonop]

Just got an email from Jon, who I had neither asked nor consulted about this "nomination". I don't even know the guy.

Paraphrasing: Jon asks that @saivann correct the links that attribute to him quotes that others made.

Follow the links to see for yourself, he is correct. @saivann's posting is downright slanderous. The fact that @saivann gets to decide whether to accept the pull request is a joke. Listen, if you can't even quote someone correctly, do you really think you should be making decisions about PRESS RELATIONS? What do I know, I've only been doing media as an analyst for a decade.

Anyone here have an ounce of integrity and willing to do the right thing? It's a one-click redemption - Just hit Merge.

[aantonop]

@emansipater Sorry, but that's a false equivalency. Preventing someone who has a long and proven track record and media reputation from being in the Press Center page should have a much higher burden than adding them.

My case is made simply by the media profile and very long publishing history, with cogent and well written articles.

The real question here is: Who am I "pitching" this to? Who is the arbiter?

If it is a matter of an open community discussion, that was shutdown by @saivann, following a claim by @luke-jr that no one cared enough to do a pull request for Matonis.

Am I supposed to persuade people who have a transparent bias just because they have commit?

[saivann]

@flix1 : Thanks, that's constructive. I only pasted most quotes from the other issue so that the discussion could resume where it ended.

@aantonop : I think we've all heard your point, thanks.

Please note : I am not fighting either for the inclusion or the exclusion of Matonis.

[emansipater]

@aantonop it's not intended as an equivalency--it's intended as an elucidation. Open source communities typically work somewhat like Ripple--consensus achieves a commit, whereas conflict hits the pause button until someone can draw together enough of the community to find a path forward. One possible way to get people on the same page: find and add a larger number of quality press contacts so that Jon's inclusion is less of a statement. What would you think about that @luke-jr ?

Another good thing for everyone to keep in mind here is that really stupid things can reduce someone's suitability for press work--like physical appearance, which is a ridiculous way to actually judge a person's value or knowledge.

[aantonop]

@emansipater You are right. I was still reacting to the third comment which was outright slander, and worse sloppy quoting, so it got heated.

I very much like your idea of having a number of new people added simultaneously. I'll offer these supporting arguments:

1. Jon frequently directs press requests to people already on this list, like jgarzik and hearn, as he gets many. This is common practice in any industry, even among competitors. As an analyst, I would often refer to other analysts, even in competing firms if they were a better source, or I was not covering a specific aspect of a technology. Some requests will be highly technical, some business oriented, some about economics or law. No one can answer everything.

2. The upcoming bitcoin conference will (hopefully) generate a lot of media requests and interest. Crunch time is coming. Thats a good reason to make a bigger list. The conference will also address diverse topics. Another reason to make a bigger list.

Perhaps others can suggest additional people.

[aantonop]

@saivann and yet you have not removed those quotes. You have not used the little edit button.

You want to decide on press relations? You will need to do better than sloppy quoting, no retraction, no apology.

You brought this on with your third comment. Don't play victim when you have all the control. I dont have a "Merge" button, I only have my voice and you're snarkily asking me to shut up. I think not.

Transparent.

[saivann]

@aantonop : I did edit the quotes already, and it was clear in my comment that I pasted them. Sorry for not veryfing them if you wish..

[aantonop]

Verifying quotes is too "press" for you, after all, this is a development website and we're using a pull request to discuss who should be on the press list.

Is the irony hitting you in the forehead with a two-by-four yet?

Listen, you said you were not advocating for or against Matonis. Prove it. You started off with a very poorly chosen comment. I will accept that it was accidental, if you have the honesty to recuse yourself from this decision and simply allow someone else who has not even created the impression of bias to make the decision.

[emansipater]

@aantonop you're offtopic now.

[flix1]

@aantonop Yes. stop. All this arguing is futile.

I think Matonis is a very good pick for the press page. Just my opinion.

I am not wasting one more second on this. My last words on this thread.

[aantonop]

You picked a software development process to make a very politically loaded decision. Please don't complain if it is not an appropriate forum for a politicaly loaded argument and debate.

This is not some abstract documentation in a code base.. You are trying to decide on who represents a community of hundreds of thousands to a worldwide press.

Now stop pissing and moaning and step up to the gravity of what you have created with your "Bitcoin Press Center".

Your censorship is not just a minor issue of a pull request. Don't let the forum confuse you as to the gravity of the topic.

[emansipater]

@aantonop and now you're aggressively offtopic. My fees to achieve consensus with you are going up :(

[aantonop]

New pull request, super on-topic and constructive: bitcoin#162

Do-over for all of us.

[sunnankar]

@aantonop, the Press Center is organized in alphabetical order by last name. If you could make the changes for consistency it would be appreciated.

[gmaxwell]

@emansipater Because this pull was closed I missed your comment until just now.. but I wanted to say, "exactly" in response to it.