,
15 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Last few words on @VladZamfir's poor piece of “work” (or is it propaganda?).
A 18-min rant to express what are some very simple ideas should be enough of a major red flag. But let me point out some tactics/fallacies. They are used elsewhere in this “space” too.
A 18-min rant to express what are some very simple ideas should be enough of a major red flag. But let me point out some tactics/fallacies. They are used elsewhere in this “space” too.
Tactics/fallacies used:
(a) “Call black white, white black”
(b) Deflection
(c) Framing
(d) Ad Hominem
(e) Intentional Vagueness
(a) “Call black white, white black”
(b) Deflection
(c) Framing
(d) Ad Hominem
(e) Intentional Vagueness
When someone suggests Zamfir’s idea invites centralized control/reinvents the status quo, note that he doesn’t respond to that point directly.
He turns around and frames Szabo as THE centralized authority, when all Szabo did was to write (with depth & extremely persuasively) about how trust-minimization socially scales better.
Either Zamfir is honestly confused about message vs. messenger, truth vs. authority, persuasion vs. control, or he’s intentionally being misleading to his readers.
This is deflection (a), turning black into white, white black (b) and framing (c).
A similar thing happens to “security”. Zamfir discusses security not in the technical sense - which we should be discussing, but in the personal & emotional sense.
Zamfir accuses Szabo of being “insecure” for wanting to minimize the governance surface (?!). Whereas in the technical sense, having humans involved in the process almost always leads to more insecurity. Bad opsec.
See how that works? Suddenly a timeless principle for technical security has been turned into “insecure”. Crazy how words work eh?
Not only Zamfir's flipped secure into insecure (a) (c), he’s using ad hominem (d) to boot.
His ad hominem gets even more bitter & spills over to Twitter:
His ad hominem gets even more bitter & spills over to Twitter:
So far we have:
(a) “Call black white, white black”
(b) Deflection
(c) Framing
(d) Ad Hominem
What else?
(a) “Call black white, white black”
(b) Deflection
(c) Framing
(d) Ad Hominem
What else?
Intentional vagueness (e).
A keen reader would notice that this rant, while extremely long, lacks specifics or evidences (read: there is not a single one).
A keen reader would notice that this rant, while extremely long, lacks specifics or evidences (read: there is not a single one).
Instead, Zamfir keeps the conversation highly vague & abstract. Repeating the terms “blockchain”, “crypto law”, “autonomous software”, “insecure” many many times.
Contrast this with Szabo’s work which is heavily backed by examples/evidences/references.
Contrast this with Szabo’s work which is heavily backed by examples/evidences/references.
A note on "autonomous software”.
By framing “autonomous software” as “bad”, Zamfir invokes the image of AI taking over the world. But note that Bitcoin, while autonomous, is anything but AI. Its scope is a lot less limited than AI. Nuances matter.
By framing “autonomous software” as “bad”, Zamfir invokes the image of AI taking over the world. But note that Bitcoin, while autonomous, is anything but AI. Its scope is a lot less limited than AI. Nuances matter.
This is just the top of my head. I’d leave you to find other holes.
I find it amusing that some people find this piece of "work" remotely convincing/interesting. 🤷🏻♂️
I find it amusing that some people find this piece of "work" remotely convincing/interesting. 🤷🏻♂️
