There is a growing schism between the conversations surrounding cryptocurrency and it’s underlying technology, blockchain. This article will look at examples of the difference in tone and message being set by contemporary technology media when they talk about crypto as opposed to that surrounding blockchain. What are the underlying reasons for these different approaches by the media to what is, ostensibly, the same technology? ![Propaganda2.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmSQWDsAhma7NwS9MSV8wbWj8Y6Bzf3GGNDtQxbkzrt4Qz/Propaganda2.jpg)

def cryptocurrency = “Crime”;

Let’s take a look at some hyper-recent articles about Cryptocurrency from leading voices in technology journalism. In CNET’s recent article, Cryptocurrency Cybercrimes Mean Easy Money the following quotes set the tone: >"The Winklevoss twins aren't the only ones getting rich off cryptocurrency. Criminals are raking it in too." > >"Before you get too excited about using or trading this new form of money, be aware that cryptocurrencies are rife with criminal activity. Cryptocurrency, for instance, is the preferred form of payment when hackers lock up your computer for ransom, such as in last year's widespread WannaCry attack. Likewise, there are viruses that turn computers into slave machines mining for cryptocurrency. Hackers have also created malware disguised as cryptocurrency apps, tricking folks who think they're cashing in on the trend. > >'It's usually being used for something illegal," said Steve McGregory, the application and threat intelligence director at security firm Ixia. He estimates that 99 percent of illegal activities online use cryptocurrency.'" The article opens by explicitly tying crypto to criminality. The author of the article then goes on to invoke that most terrifying of cybercrime, ransomware. Nothing is scarier than having your crypto-wallet and/or only copies of your two-year old blowing chasing bubbles on a summer lawn locked away and taken hostage. The author of this CNET article even goes so far to using semantic trickery to make crypto sound even worse in the last quote from the security specialist. The quote begins by implying ’[crypto is] usually being used for something illegal’ but then ‘qualifies’ the statement by saying that 99% of illegal activity uses crypto. You see what they did there? I do. Recently, Newsweek released an article entitled Hackers Hijack Millions of Smartphones to Mine Cryptocurrency. Let’s looks at how they are setting up the conversation around crypto: >"Hackers have hijacked government websites in the U.S. and the U.K. in order to secretly mine cryptocurrency through the computers and smartphones of any visitors to the sites. > >The illicit cryptocurrency mining, known as cryptojacking, took place on more than 4,200 websites on February 11, using a malicious version of a tool called Browsealoud. The software, developed by British firm Texthelp, is embedded into websites to help people with poor vision by providing an audio version of the text. > >Security experts warn the latest cryptojacking is part of a growing trend that website owners need to start better protecting against." Again, they are invoking ‘security experts,’ using scary terms like ‘cryptojacking’ and ‘hackers’. While the events in this article might be factual, the tone of the article is one that places the blame on the existence of cryptocurrency as a thing in the world and not on the vulnerabilities in the code or lack of security oversight from the company that developed the accessibility software. Also from Newsweek, we are gifted an article entitled Cryptocurrency Cybercrimes Mean Easy Money that similarly places the cyphervillan lurking behind every hedge in what might as well be the entire internet: >"Cryptocurrency mining has mostly been a favored method for hackers looking to make a quick profit from vulnerable websites. Cryptojacking software was recently found on more than 4,200 websites in the U.S. and U.K., which were running a malicious version of a tool used to help people with poor vision to understand the site’s content." > >"One strain of cryptocurrency mining software discovered last year proved to be so powerful that it could melt a person’s smartphone if it was not detected in time." Again we have the term cryptojacking, which I assure you was not coined by this cohort, that is, cryptocurrency and blockchain enthusiasts, the actual boots-on-the-ground on the front of what is shaping up to be a classic propaganda war.

def blockchain = “Social Justice”;

Switching gears, lets take a look at some recent articles that focus on blockchain. Fortune magazine recently published an article by the name of 3 Ways Blockchain Can Empower Women Worldwide. The tone here is not one of criminality, but one of social justice: >"If you’ve heard of Bitcoin—the first decentralized digital currency that functions without a central bank or other third-party intermediary—you may have also heard of the transformative technology behind the cryptocurrency: blockchain. Put simply, blockchain is an immutable ledger—a series of data points strung into time-stamped blocks that cannot be modified and that are distributed across a global network of computers. > >Blockchain, however, can do far more than power cryptocurrencies. From securing personal records to contracts to payments, it may also drive the next frontier of women’s economic empowerment. > >According to the World Bank, women in developing countries are less likely than men to hold an official ID, often because they lack a birth certificate or other necessary documentation. Blockchain’s ability to store personal records in a safe and cost-efficient way can provide women with digital IDs, which in turn could allow them to own land and bank accounts or take advantage of job opportunities in the formal economy." The author here seems to be peripherally aware of the difference between talking about blockchain and crypto, stating ’Blockchain… can do far more than power cryptocurrencies’. Similarly, Computer Weekly offers us another article that connects blockchain and social justice for marginalized groups entitled Blockchain to give global LGBT Community a Louder Economic Voice. Take a look at the below quote: >"A global lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community organisation is using blockchain to create a global platform and digital currency to connect businesses and consumers in the trillion dollar Pink economy. > >Blockchain technology is key. It will enable members of the LGBT community to register and self-manage their membership and their combined economic transactions to be secured and measured. > >The power of the pink dollar economy is not well understood as much of the spending is not categorised. If merchants can better understand spending habits, they could better target the right products and services." This article is making claims with the same timbre as those that are attempting to criminalize crypto. The author makes the statement ‘Blockchain technology is key.’ This statement is the same type of semantic subterfuge as ’[crypto is] usually being used for something illegal’, it is just on the illuminated side of the black rainbow. To round out our comparison, let’s examine the claims made in technical.ly in their short piece Blockchain Solutions For The Refugee Crisis: >"The event, held at Grand Central Tech, was one of those time-warping events filled with ideas, global challenges, informed perspectives and hard-won experience — all centered on the topic of how blockchain technology might contribute to solving some of the world’s most challenging problems. > >No small agenda here. > >The stated mandate, according to organizers, was to “explore potential and opportunities of blockchain solutions to make a lasting impact on peace building, humanitarian efforts and sustainable development in very practical terms.” > >Personal Identification: How can a refugee re-establish verified identity when their original documents are lost, destroyed or had to be abandoned? > >Medical Supply Chain: How can perishable medical supplies be reliably delivered while they are still effective? > >Asset Management: How can you transfer money and be assured that fraud and corruption doesn’t divert it from it’s intended recipient? > >Certificate Verification: How can you easily verify credentials, medical training for example, of workers trained at various international institutions?" Like the previous article about ransomware being embedded in accessibility technology, the above statements might very well be true, or at least, tru-ish, when referencing blockchain technology, but the conversation that is being shaped around these truths is being scaffolded on a foundation of classic propaganda techniques. So why is this happening? Why are there two different conversations surround what is essentially one technology?

propaganda = (cryptocurrency + blockchain) run propaganda

The article, Who Would Live In A Blockchain Society? from the Epistemology Review and Reply Collective has some relevant thoughts that I think we can plug into our program. The author begins by stating: >“BC is an unknown phenomenon still for many people; partly fantasy and partly a soon-to-be new reality. In short, a ‘blockchain’ is simply a chronologically arranged online (internet-based) digital chain of ‘blocks2.’ A ‘blockchain society’ is thus a kind of semi-fictional representation that harks potentially 15 years into the future, when BC tech will be widely integrated globally and locally into human-social life. In this near-future, I imagine a scenario where ‘machines’ or cybernetic organisms (read: killer robots) haven’t taken over people or led to ‘post-humanity’ (Terminator, Bostrom, Kurzweil, et al.) or ‘trans-humanity’ (Fuller). Rather ‘social machines’ (e.g. BC tech) are used to aid specifically human (homo sapiens sapiens) development.” 27 The opening sentence is likely the most important for us, blockchain is still largely unknown by the majority of the public. This makes is a perfect straw man for agendas on both sides, those that would like to see crypto (and by extension, blockchain - don’t think they won’t come for that next) illegal or regulated into dust, and by those that see blockchain as a guiding light leading us into a Star Trek Federation of Planets future. I assert, however, that both sides of this propaganda campaign have one instigator. The author of ‘Blockchain Society’ continues: >“BC tech thus redefines what a ‘market economy’ means with higher sustainability and improved proportionality at its core because of its new system for measuring, owning and allotting value in social economics, in a way that value can be redistributed quickly within a system... > >“BC tech in one sense offers a turn of focus away from N. Machiavelli’s view of the ‘state,’ or what we now call ‘nation-state’ toward a new kind of community attitude or ‘social epistemology,’ specifically voiced within a [Ledger Community]… BC provides an alternative notion to Machiavellian (western autocratic) individualism by definition in enabling a more ‘trusting’ attitude in communal or group situations and that highlight value transactions in those communities. Thus the new level of BC ‘community morality’ will become a kind of boundary wall for inclusion in or exclusion from a LC, wherein by the will of the each BCs voluntary rules the policy arises simply that ‘dictators are not allowed.’ This move pushes actively into addressing a sociological void against strong-arm ‘hard power’ tactics in negotiations and politics, without necessarily diminishing the creative freedom and moral credibility of active individuals in a LC.” 32 ‘[Blockchain] provides an alternative notion to Machiavellian… individualism by… enabling a more ’trusting’ attitude in communal or group situations…’ Who wouldn’t want that? Who has the incentive to keep individuals from trusting each other? Institutions, primarily, financial institutions, are the obvious man-behind-the-curtain. Both sides of this propaganda campaign serve their need, on one side you have the conservative status-quo that resonate at the same frequency as the words in the Newsweek and CNET articles. On the other side you have the proponents of social justice who, by being associated with what is ostensibly the ultimate ‘communal’ technology, blockchain, are being subtly tuned to more radical (think Reagan-era Communists) enemy nanny-state parameters. This also serves the financial institutions.

TL;DR

The crypto-community (yes, that’s you) needs to have a stronger voice in the propaganda war against cryptocurrency. Mainstream (and even hipster bit-stream as the article cites) media is running roughshod over the blockchain / crypto movement. They are capitalizing on the unknown qualities of both to paint them either as a tool of criminals or a tool of communists, both of which serve the same agenda. The crypto-community needs to balance out these two arguments with truth, real world use cases, and a medium-heat rhetoric that serves to create a normative atmosphere, and not a propagandized one, in which to talk about blockchain and cryptocurrency.