I think if you talk to a reporter, unless you explicitly note before beginning that the conversation is off the record and they agree to it, you have to assume that anything you say can be shared.
Ok, either SBF is actually a complete moron, or this was a very calculated ploy. Making it seem like it was not intended for the public just make his statements seem more authentic.
But: Even though there is lots of stuff here which is incriminating, it nevertheless lets him off the hook somewhat:
he is adamant that there was never any intent to do anything bad with customer deposits, things just happened along the way
he says that the hack had nothing to do with him or anybody in his circle (that’s assumed at least)
there is no mention of the “backdoor” which allowed him to do things with customer money without oversight
he comes off as bizarre and incompetent, rather than as a evil super-villain
Given that he so far has been known to be very media savvy and to cultivate his and FTX’s image in a way that benefits him, I would be very surprised if he just assumed that his journalist friend would not publish these things at all.
I think this is an area where induction is important? If my previous interactions with someone are friendly conversation, it makes sense to interpret a request that they ask me questions as an invitation to more friendly conversation. If they’ve previously interviewed me professionally and haven’t had friendly conversations with me, it make sense to interpret that as an interview.
As to SBF’s tweet, I think we should bear in mind that he sometimes lies.
I think if you talk to a reporter, unless you explicitly note before beginning that the conversation is off the record and they agree to it, you have to assume that anything you say can be shared.
Maybe this is him referencing the article?
Last night I talked to a friend of mine. They published my messages. Those were not intended to be public, but I guess they are now. https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1593014934207881218
Ok, either SBF is actually a complete moron, or this was a very calculated ploy. Making it seem like it was not intended for the public just make his statements seem more authentic.
But: Even though there is lots of stuff here which is incriminating, it nevertheless lets him off the hook somewhat:
he is adamant that there was never any intent to do anything bad with customer deposits, things just happened along the way
he says that the hack had nothing to do with him or anybody in his circle (that’s assumed at least)
there is no mention of the “backdoor” which allowed him to do things with customer money without oversight
he comes off as bizarre and incompetent, rather than as a evil super-villain
Given that he so far has been known to be very media savvy and to cultivate his and FTX’s image in a way that benefits him, I would be very surprised if he just assumed that his journalist friend would not publish these things at all.
Why not both?
I think this is an area where induction is important? If my previous interactions with someone are friendly conversation, it makes sense to interpret a request that they ask me questions as an invitation to more friendly conversation. If they’ve previously interviewed me professionally and haven’t had friendly conversations with me, it make sense to interpret that as an interview.
As to SBF’s tweet, I think we should bear in mind that he sometimes lies.
Sounds like he thought he was talking to Kelsey as a friend and not in her professional capacity.