As ridiculous as that article was, the deletion is worse. Decentralized write-only communication that "cannot" be deleted is foundational to establishing trust in the crypto space (at least as it was originally envisoned). How does one claim to empower change for the good by backing projects in this space, and yet try and make something vanish if it shows them in a bad light? If anything, this should go right at the top of an anti-portfolio as a counter-balance when business cycles are inevitably looping back into insanity territory.
We don’t need decentralized write-only communication. People have memories and reputation have power, and technical solutions aren’t going to change that.
What the crypto folks need to do to gain trust is stop behaving as though a lack of decentralized write-only communication means they can say whatever they want and nobody will remember the times they were wildly wrong.
But Sequoia Capital isn't a newspaper. They are not under any obligation to retain puff pieces on their investments. Arguing that there should be a "write-only" register (aka blockchain) is arguing that anything written in the space, ever, should be immortalized on it. Which doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
As other comments point out, the Print Screen key, "Save to PDF", and archive.org are all you really need.
They have every right to delete the puff piece. Saying that the deletion punctures their credibility and posturing significantly more than the article itself. Things will go south in some high-risk venture investments. Owning up to the mistakes at least messages that there is learning. Would be interesting to see other VCs take on this.
I don’t think the parent is arguing for a blockchain one journalism, just that outlets claiming to be “news” should own their mistakes if they want to retain credibility.
I think GGP is conflating "we commissioned an article from an established journalist" with the article being "news". Adtorials, or whatever they're called, have been quite the thing lately and I don't see how this is any different, except inverted.
Since Sequoia isn't a news agency, its article is private corporate speech. And with the remarks about establishing trust in the crypto space, it seems to imply that either press release or adtorial-type stuff, or all private speech in the space, shouldn't be deletable.
You’re right, it’s not a news agency, however it is masquerading as one to try and increase their legitimacy. It’s reasonable to criticise their behaviour.
Even if entirely objective in the presentation of "just the facts", merely through the act of curation (what is noteworthy enough to appear in the paper), we make memory selective, and therefore biased. Interesting that real newspapers did serve as "proof of date" until very recently but generative AI might puncture that.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221027181005/https://www.sequo... (linking it here because this deserves to be preserved as a cautionary tale in our collective memory)