Welp.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-fiatjaf-nostr-donation-2024-6
(https://archive.ph/uXdXN#selection-2141.0-2157.353)
Discussion
"someone gave some money to someone to develop a decentralized messaging protocol and that someone follows or followed someone who thought some bad things"
Meanwhile people living under actual fascist regimes today are using that protocol to document human rights abuses.
Because their messages cannot be censored - unlike on Bluesky, Mastodon, or corporate social media.
Journalistic priorities in full view.
"someone gave some money to someone to develop a decentralized messaging protocol and that someone follows or followed someone who thought some bad things"
The category error of follows/followed aside
Is that even news worthy?
Is it news worthy enough to justify doxxing someone?
What journalist ethics may apply here?
"follower" is a lazy category error
"[fiatjaf] told Forbes that his political views were shaped by the laissez-faire Austrian school of economics"
The article could have cited Wikipedia
"Carvalho's political views were summed up in one of his tweets: "Capitalism is the godfather and protector of communism.""
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olavo_de_Carvalho
But complexity doesn't suit a hit piece
"acolyte"
Fair and balanced journalism 🙄
One may wonder why Katherine Long thinks that an "acolyte" of an "authoritarian" would develop a decentralized messaging protocol to enable censorship resistant communication for everyone
If you post links to someone's website or attend a course run by them you are now their "acolyte"
The standard of modern journalism
/ thought policing