Physical bitcoin articles -more prevalent than ever-shittier than ever

[ChiBitCTy]

https://cryptonews.com/cryptocurrency/physical-bitcoin/

Here's an example of another idiot who's editor doesn't give a shit if his articles are fact or fiction.  It's getting REALLY tiresome of seeing so many shit articles with misinformation.  First off, most still say Casascius was first, much to the dismay to many (especially Krogo lol) - but for christ sakes I've written out a timeline spelling it all out, not that hard to find - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5174217.0 

Also, many articles state they aren't really being made any more.  If they aren't funded they are just novelty, with little premium value, and that there is no use for them any more as we have hardware wallets.  What these fools don't understand is that it is still cold storage, even safer than hardware wallets in some ways, but one KEY point, they are an excellent way to trade/buy/sell bitcoin off the blockchain.  So there's no actual blockchain movement showing to whom and from the coins were sent to.  This is a BIG DEAL. 

This was apparently not "AI" written, but many are.  There's so many other shitty ones, anyone else been noticing this too?

[Kazkaz27]

Love the history🙌

[jstyler]

I've been following this trend too, and I'm surprised the industry as a whole hasn't stepped up to ensure the accuracy of these articles. Breaking down the facts about Casascius coins is crucial, their unique aspect is often glossed over in favor of sensationalism. The trade/off-blockchain aspect is what matters most to me, it's a game-changer and could be a major reason why they're still valuable.

[alani123]

These sites are quantity over quality. Media generally and especially journalism isn't a profitable endeavour.
Fact checking is dying, ads won't support it and people don't have cash to spare.

So among the few big media that exist, most of the supposedly good ones are just funded by some billionaire to serve certain interests. Small ones like these are just scrapping by with bare minimum costs. Don't think that whoever wrote this article had a good wage. In any case I think it's ok to try to contact them for a correction but I don't have my hopes up that much. It's basically just a content mill.