This passage talks about how important it is to always stay positive and use our words in a mindful way since what we think and say can have an immense impact on ourselves and those around us. We must be aware of the power our words have and try to be thoughtful and kind when using them, as they can affect other people deeply. It’s vital that we’re conscious of our speech as it’s capable of spreading joy or sorrow within seconds.
The New York Times newspaper was recently criticized for publishing a negative story about bitcoin mining. The article said that bitcoin mining hurts the environment and claimed that one of the authors wrote it after doing lots of research. But, bitcoin supporters disagree because they think the reporter used old data and unfairly only included opinions from one side.
“Here’s What Happened After The New York Times Published Their Bitcoin Article!”
The passage above introduces some ideas and concepts which might be difficult for a thirteen-year-old to understand. So I’ll rephrase all the difficult phrases and abstract words from the passage in order to make it easily understandable to a 13-year-old while still maintaining its content length and flow.
Recently, The New York Times has been called out on social media because famous bitcoin people said it wrote an article that only presented one side of the story. This isn’t the first time they’ve been accused of not following journalistic integrity and being biased. In November 2022, The New York Times published something really nice about Sam Bankman-Fried (an old FTX CEO) and asked him to a company event called Dealbook Summit. On April 10th, NYT reporter Gabriel Dance wrote an editorial about how we can measure the costs of using digital currency like Bitcoin in real life.
In his article, Dance mentioned that 85% of bitcoin miners in the United States use fossil fuels as their energy source. He also shared that Texas has 34 different bitcoin mines and this could negatively affect the environment. This news made some people angry since they think it’s propaganda. Someone named Dennis Porter, who is the CEO and co-founder of Satoshi Act Fund, disagreed with what was said in the article.
Porter said in a tweet that the New York Times (NYT) wrote something about bitcoin mining and it’s what they expected. He was sad to see the NYT write bad things about bitcoin mining because people had been trying hard to explain the other side of the story. Porter also said that it seemed like clicks were more important for them than the truth. In another tweet, he said that the NYT didn’t even bother checking where bitcoin mining was happening and made a mistake in writing down the town name. The correct name of the town is actually Rockdale, TX instead of Rockland which cannot be taken seriously according to him.
Alex Gladstein, who works for the Human Rights Foundation, criticized a New York Times (NYT) article. He said that it failed to mention the benefits of bitcoin and argued that readers probably think it’s useless if they can’t see its value. Others disagreed with the NYT article’s methodology used by climate activists Daniel Batten and Troy Cross.
“New Information Revealed
People have been striving to pursue the best version of themselves in many facets like their physical health, career goals and emotional wellbeing. Pursuing self-improvement can help us become more aware of where we stand and what steps need to be taken in order to reach our goal. This is especially important if we aim to make a positive impact on ourselves or on those around us. Self-improvement requires a lot of dedication and hard work, however, it will bring a great amount of satisfaction upon achieving even the smallest progress that was made.
Batten is an expert in stuff related to the environment like social and political issues, and he also spends a lot of money on new technology that can help with the climate. Recently, he disagreed with an article published by the New York Times. He claims that the newspaper and its author got their facts wrong when they wrote it; they exaggerated how much pollution creating bitcoin mining causes. According to Batten’s numbers, the NYT was way off-target; according to him, their figures were overstated more than 81.7%.
Someone named Batten made a thread on Twitter criticizing an article from the New York Times. The article didn’t include any evidence from people who had spent time researching bitcoin technology, and its data wasn’t recent either. According to Batten, bitcoin mining doesn’t mainly use fossil fuel and it actually helps renewable energy providers become more profitable.
What do you think about the way that The New York Times reported on bitcoin mining and its environmental effects? Do you think they were fair, or do you think they presented only one side of the story? Tell us your thoughts in the comment section.