From the article:
MajidBC, the account who messaged SirWilliam in an attempt to purchase his account, is now banned along with the “CozyLife” account as they found the write-up on their practices not to their liking.
I have not seen any evidence of this. Why should I believe this not to be speculation?
CCN’s policy is only to report what authors can prove and to update the articles with new information as it arrives.
This appears to not be the case as there is no evidence to the statement made in the same paragraph this statement was written in.
A new petition encourages Theymos, the administrator of BitcoinTalk, to give his side of the story for an addition to the article about his website, instead of quietly banning accounts.
This statement is misleading as the petition was created by the same person who wrote the article. It has also only gotten 3 "signatures", an amount that would hardly warrant a reputable news agency to report.
Media must follow certain ethical standards when reporting the news and at CCN, our team follows the standards to the letter.
This is not the case in this article.
We believe that our readers have a right to know what’s going on in the world, and we don’t believe in hiding or altering any aspect of that reality.
The news is suppose to not have any bias, however both your article on how accounts are traded and this article is strongly biased. The reporter writing the article should also not be a "source" to the article, but instead should have someone else write an article who can use you as a source.
You’ve had to endure the dishonesty of politicians, while business owners seek to control what information you receive and form monopolies on their market.
Can you give an example of this?
BitcoinTalk and other major players could benefit from a decentralized control structure. If enough people vote to remove an account, it will be removed. If enough people wish to reinstate that account, it will be reinstated. Blockchain technology makes all of this possible, and all the largest Bitcoin forum needs to do is implement it.
BitcoinTalk staff wouldn’t need to moderate the forums any longer if they become decentralized, and their already existing trust from the community would only get stronger for it.
The forum is not owned by the public, it is a privately owned forum therefore this makes zero sense. It would also be very easy to manipulate via sock puppets, and would essentially be a form of self censorship of unpopular information.
You are also a moron for thinking that the blockchain "can save the world" (there are several variations of this suggestion and they are all equally as stupid) as this is not what the block chain is useful for.
Do you think that the BitcoinTalk forum should become decentralized so that the members control the site?
No, I think I would not use such a site and many others would likely do the same.
If there was a BitcoinTalk coin to govern the weight of people’s votes on the forum, would it be useful?
No this would enable people with money to censor the thoughts and ideas they do not like.
Would you buy it?
No, this would be nothing more then a scam coin (very much like this is a scam article).
How do you feel about BitcoinTalk’s staff members quietly banning people for speaking out against them? Leave a comment below and express your views.
If this was true: I would be outraged, however it is not, so I have lost respect for you and your news agency.
From the comments section:
LOL (or as BadBear would say:
)
TL;DR - cryptocoinsnews.com is a joke new agency with no editorial integrity
EDIT: From
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/write-ccn/ (the link where you "apply" to become a writer)
We are looking for journalists and writers that can publish unique content on CryptoCoinsNews.
Articles that are written have to be above 500 words and have good quality, both regarding to grammar and content. If you are interested in writing for CCN, submit the form below.
Important: We do not accept people that have little or no writing skills, and little or no journalism experience.
This is apparently not the case
