@molly0xFFF | 99,816 followers
Around fifteen researchers and critics have annotated @kevinroose's thinly-veiled cryptocurrency advertisement that ran in the @nytimes last Sunday. We try to provide the editorial scrutiny and critical perspectives that the piece so irresponsibly lacked.

Tweet Engagement Stats

Stats are based upon replies and quotes of this tweet

Engagement Map


Replies and Quotes

Total of 29 replies and 56 quotes found
This is what a @nytimes text should have done. Be critical and provide context. Not just do PR.
In reply to @molly0xFFF
Brilliant work as always. Because it's about making journalism on this topic better and holding the New York Times to the highest standard the publication rightly deserves. Because that's what we all need to do collective sense making.
This is a really well designed way of presenting annotations from multiple collaborators pic.twitter.com/gMNFev2n2a
Vaguely disheartening to see @nytimes let this sort of slipshod ‘journalism’ run.

But also quite heartening to see citizens perform the intended function of the 4th estate and swiftly call it out.

This is decentralization I’d bet on: people, not hare-brained tech.

Web1 4 lyfe
In reply to @molly0xFFF
This is the only way anybody could ever get me to read that massive puff piece. What a great idea, and done so quickly.
Thank you!!!!!! lol Jesus

Bookmarking to read on a laptop later. pic.twitter.com/IGyjGvY1jQ
imagine writing an article so misleading an entire community forms around countering your narrative
I’m only partway through, but this collaborative annotation/evisceration of the NYT’s Sunday crypto supplement is both a great, informative read and a pretty remarkable document in its own right. I can imagine this format for criticism applied to many other kinds of stories.
In reply to @molly0xFFF
This is a phenomenal piece of work pulling this all together, brilliantly done. I really hope that people who are genuinely confused about crypto, and were led astray by the NYT piece, will be curious enough to find it.
In reply to @molly0xFFF
Now @kevinroose has to write a response including the SHA-3 of yours, then you can respond to his response by taking the SHA-3 of his, thereby forming a verifiable chain of criticism going back to the genesis newspaper article. 🤔
"No technology is "sober" or "dispassionate" in its creation, nor is it neutral or apolitical, and thus anyone who is claiming to view it from that perspective is DEFINITELY selling you something." -- wisdom about blockchains, and all other stuff, from Dr @CatherineFlick
In reply to @molly0xFFF
Anything that requires currying good favour with Twitter of all sordid things should immediately be consigned to the dustbin. pic.twitter.com/riJlESXcef
This is literally the stupidest fucking anti-crypto thing I've read in a long time.
They think they're providing editorial scrutiny when in fact they themselves are creating their own massive 'Citation Missing' and 'Very Subjective' piece here.

Case in point...I mean wtf man: pic.twitter.com/Mo1DT3mLQj
In reply to @molly0xFFF
I read it when it came out, so glad there's a full-on critique I can point to now The article left a reeaaallly bad taste in my mouth
Re 20% crypto ownership stat cited by @kevinroose in the NYT:

"This number came from a study with a sample size of 2,200 people, and which did not disclose anything about how subjects were recruited."

And if it was an online survey, we don't even know they were people.

In reply to @molly0xFFF
When people talk about "remix'ing" the web, this is what I dream of.

We gotta have more of these on the web.
In reply to @molly0xFFF
It's interesting how crypto is alone responsible for the pollution caused by the power plants it draws from, while central banks get a pass, despite using at least twice as much power in total.
I was part of this and very honoured to be invited.
You'd hope breathless criticisms of a lack of thorough reporting would themselves be properly researched. Even a cursory search shows that @Helium is very much not WiFi hotspots. But yeah, I trust "Anonymous 2" the crypto critic more than The New York Times. Thanks for saving me. pic.twitter.com/Ao0zTiaizO
READ THIS! This is brilliant work to annotate the #cryptocurrency advertisement that ran as an “article” in the New York Times last weekend. Fantastic work to point out the MANY errors and false claims in the article…

#Web3 #Crypto #Bitcoin #blockchain #cryptocurrencies
This is actually informative read now.

For example, pic.twitter.com/3OH5qeDceC
In reply to @molly0xFFF
Fantastic breakdown Molly & crew! How does one "accidentally" sell an NFT for $500k anyway?🤔
Very valuable work - illustrates point by point why it was clearly a puff piece.

The other sections need same treatment, e.g.
*Super* hard to believe this was *inadvertently* glossing over the distinction that *you don't actually own the sculpture.* pic.twitter.com/xRX3SbgLG0
In reply to @molly0xFFF
You are doing amazing work Molly!
This is a great analysis of an advertisement for cryptocurrency masquerading as a sober piece on the technology.
In reply to @molly0xFFF
Your comments made this wierd piece one of the best on the topic that I've read in a long time. Thanks for the hard work picking it apart. The @nytimes better review their editing process and hand you some of my money (which is nothing - to be fair, their offer is kinda nice).
Fully trashes the article, into dust.
In reply to @molly0xFFF
Cryto makes Bernie Madoff look like an amateur hack Why the acceptance of individuals involved that should set off every gut reaction? Example: "Nobody Caribou", Nicholas St. Louis, an Ottawa foot therapist, was part of the Russia backed "Freedom Convoy" crypto team. pic.twitter.com/o7TwItrshC
If the tide of #cryptocurrencies promotion is threatening to erode your skepticism like it did to @nytimes, read this first.
Crypto is a scam, continued.
This is just incredible.
In reply to @molly0xFFF
Thanks. This was a great read.
In reply to @molly0xFFF
WOW. I knew tech coverage on NYT was misinformed but this ... This is just shameful. Why did @nytimes publish this unethical garbage?
This is true public service!
“Yeah, market cap is a meaningless number. It assumes everyone bought at the current price and could cash out at the current price.”
Worth a read (along with the original NYT article on crypto they are dissecting):
Taking apart an “unbiased” guide to cryptocurrency - this is great.
Everyone should read this ⬇️
In reply to @molly0xFFF
Great stuff from everyone involved.
This is extraordinarily good
In reply to @molly0xFFF
‘s comment 😂
Wow this is some grade-A copium. The worst rebuttal was the one about market cap. Most of the crypto market cap sits in $BTC and $ETH, which have plenty of liquidity tyvm.
This is an amazing takedown.

Can think of some other NYT pieces that might benefit from this approach? :)
Over 27 replies and quotes not shown


762 retweeters not shown
For access to this functionality a Trendsmap Explore subscription is required.

A Trendsmap Explore subscription provides full access to all available timeframes

Find out more

Thanks for trying our Trendsmap Pro demo.

For continued access, and to utliise the full functionality available, you'll need to subscribe to a Trendsmap Pro subscription.

Find out more

This account is already logged in to Trendsmap.
Your subscription allows access for one user. If you require access for more users, you can create additional subscriptions.
Please Contact us if you are interested in discussing discounts for 3+ users for your organisation, or have any other queries.