So it doesn't much matter whether the interview was fabricated, edited, or otherwise fraudulent. It was aired to lay the groundwork for a pardon. Look for SBF to receive a pardon from Trump in the future (cf. Ross Ulbricht.)
1: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-...
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Mc...
Tucker Carlson is specifically cited as maintaining that he spoke the truth on page 5. Rather it's Fox News that argues that Tucker Carlson was stating an opinion with hyperbole for effect:
"Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect...
This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”"
At any rate, the case is a lot more complex than just one guy claiming no one believes anything he says. Using it to justify the possibility that the interview by Tucker Carlson was not with the actual Sam Bankman-Fried by with a potential imposter or AI is absolute bonkers.
What was Carlson actually stating, and what was the context? Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court.
Wait, you actually think he was sued by people who took his statements seriously (aka fans)? The people taking it seriously were likely misconstruing rhetoric in a literal sense. This happens quite a bit. Sometimes the rhetoric is out of line, sometimes not. One could argue that his meaning is clearly understood by fans, like a big inside joke, and that the ridiculous claims are just another form of entertainment.
That said, if you watch Tucker now you'll see that he's much more serious than when he was on Fox News. I don't think applying the results from that case in any way to his independent journalism makes sense.
I'll take your word for it, how's that.
Are you by any chance familiar with prison?
That's a whole new sentence.
There's no logical progression from:
"Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen."
to
"only billionaires can get contraband in prison"
Rethink the modalities in the two comments and try again.
Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen.