dsbatten on Nostr: The algorithm for writing environmental FUD about Bitcoin. Readers of these articles ...
The algorithm for writing environmental FUD about Bitcoin.
Readers of these articles may use this as a scoring system to see how high the writer's FUD-factor is.
1. Avoid objectivity Only publish negative stories. Ignore all positive environmental and social externalities, or even acknowledging they exist to readers
2. Use only old datasets
Up-to-date datasets such as Bloomberg Intelligence will reveal that Bitcoin is mostly powered by sustainable energy, and that emissions have not increased in the last 4 years. Avoid these studies. Using Cambridge's 26-month old dataset is good. Using UN University's 3-year old dataset is better.
3. Recycle already debunked methodologies
For example, while Alex de Vries' resource-use per transaction has been debunked by peer reviewed research and Cambridge Judge Business School, most people don't know it, so use this metric with impunity.
4. Selectively use of peer reviewed research In the last 18 months there have been 6 papers examining the positive environmental externalities of Bitcoin, 2 that focused on negative externalities. But because only The Independent picked up any of the 6 positive papers, most people are still unaware of positive externalities. So keep selectively quoting from the negative ones.
5. No engagement with, or faux-engagement with the BTC mining community While objectively they are the only ones who understand Bitcoin mining well enough to educate readers, it is better to paint them as a self-interested group of lobbyists. If you do engage with them, make sure you only quote token sound bites, which you then allow your own carefully selected "experts" to contradict (see below on what constitutes an "expert")
6. Reference unqualified energy experts To you an "expert" should be thought of a person who understand energys, grids but has no understanding of bitcoin mining). Definitely eshew qualified energy experts (people who deeply understand energy grids AND bitcoin mining)
7. Withhold relevant context Noise pollution is a good candidate. Find an example of a bad actor and, through omission, make it look as though all Bitcoin mining companies behave this way. Do not mention statistics such as the number of mining companies causing noise pollution relative to total number, or do cross-industry comparisons.
8. Don't zoom out For example, if Bitcoin is responsible for emissions, then that should be lambasted. Do not point out that like eVs it has no direct emissions, or that every novel technology has emissions. Definitely do not examine trend that show Bitcoin heading to be the world's first emission negative network.
9. Encourage "inside the box" thinking "Bitcoin consumes a lot of energy" should be neuro=associated wherever possible with "is bad for the environment". Don't mention that without more energy, particularly flexible users of energy, there can be no renewable transition. Do not mention that Bitcoin uses wasted energy. Definitely do not point out that it is emissions rather than energy use which primarily decides whether a technology is good for the environment or not.
10. Actively practice error by omission Under no circumstances should the utility of Bitcoin as a technology be examined. To do so would be very dangerous to your narrative. People will tend to judge a technology as "wasteful" only when they do not see the value. Ensure that your readers stay uneducated about the value of Bitcoin.
Instead, you should scatter the occasional negative statement about Bitcoin such as “it is only used by criminals”, "it is just a only speculative asset” wherever possible. While these statements have been debunked, most people are still unaware that they have been debunked, so you should feel confident to use them everywhere except Twitter (where you will be community noted) and Nostr (where people will be more educated about Bitcoin’s value).
Attribute these phrases to "experts" so your article does not look too obviously one-sided.
Happy writing. We trust this will make your task easier.
Readers of these articles may use this as a scoring system to see how high the writer's FUD-factor is.
1. Avoid objectivity Only publish negative stories. Ignore all positive environmental and social externalities, or even acknowledging they exist to readers
2. Use only old datasets
Up-to-date datasets such as Bloomberg Intelligence will reveal that Bitcoin is mostly powered by sustainable energy, and that emissions have not increased in the last 4 years. Avoid these studies. Using Cambridge's 26-month old dataset is good. Using UN University's 3-year old dataset is better.
3. Recycle already debunked methodologies
For example, while Alex de Vries' resource-use per transaction has been debunked by peer reviewed research and Cambridge Judge Business School, most people don't know it, so use this metric with impunity.
4. Selectively use of peer reviewed research In the last 18 months there have been 6 papers examining the positive environmental externalities of Bitcoin, 2 that focused on negative externalities. But because only The Independent picked up any of the 6 positive papers, most people are still unaware of positive externalities. So keep selectively quoting from the negative ones.
5. No engagement with, or faux-engagement with the BTC mining community While objectively they are the only ones who understand Bitcoin mining well enough to educate readers, it is better to paint them as a self-interested group of lobbyists. If you do engage with them, make sure you only quote token sound bites, which you then allow your own carefully selected "experts" to contradict (see below on what constitutes an "expert")
6. Reference unqualified energy experts To you an "expert" should be thought of a person who understand energys, grids but has no understanding of bitcoin mining). Definitely eshew qualified energy experts (people who deeply understand energy grids AND bitcoin mining)
7. Withhold relevant context Noise pollution is a good candidate. Find an example of a bad actor and, through omission, make it look as though all Bitcoin mining companies behave this way. Do not mention statistics such as the number of mining companies causing noise pollution relative to total number, or do cross-industry comparisons.
8. Don't zoom out For example, if Bitcoin is responsible for emissions, then that should be lambasted. Do not point out that like eVs it has no direct emissions, or that every novel technology has emissions. Definitely do not examine trend that show Bitcoin heading to be the world's first emission negative network.
9. Encourage "inside the box" thinking "Bitcoin consumes a lot of energy" should be neuro=associated wherever possible with "is bad for the environment". Don't mention that without more energy, particularly flexible users of energy, there can be no renewable transition. Do not mention that Bitcoin uses wasted energy. Definitely do not point out that it is emissions rather than energy use which primarily decides whether a technology is good for the environment or not.
10. Actively practice error by omission Under no circumstances should the utility of Bitcoin as a technology be examined. To do so would be very dangerous to your narrative. People will tend to judge a technology as "wasteful" only when they do not see the value. Ensure that your readers stay uneducated about the value of Bitcoin.
Instead, you should scatter the occasional negative statement about Bitcoin such as “it is only used by criminals”, "it is just a only speculative asset” wherever possible. While these statements have been debunked, most people are still unaware that they have been debunked, so you should feel confident to use them everywhere except Twitter (where you will be community noted) and Nostr (where people will be more educated about Bitcoin’s value).
Attribute these phrases to "experts" so your article does not look too obviously one-sided.
Happy writing. We trust this will make your task easier.