The impact of Bitcoin mining on rural communities has been amazing. Aside from keeping the cost of energy low (https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1766618306465907123) and helping communities decarbonize (source: https://batcoinz.com/why-climate-action-doesnt-just-benefit-from-bitcoin-mining-it-requires-it/), Bitcoin was found in a recent report from Perryman Group to * create 31,000 jobs * stabilize electric grids due to their flexible power needs * investing into their local communities source: https://x.com/MARAHoldings/status/1893015821535879475) In recent real life case studies, Matt Schultz from Cleanspark recently shared that these community benefits "employing locals, educating the workforce and even pushing down property taxes" (source: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1934713496849023242) It's not just the Bitcoin mining industry saying this. Local Rockdale mayor Ward Roddam called Bitcoin mining companies "deeply invested in the communities where they work" and that they had even "saved the community of Rockdale" citing numerous specific examples of where they'd uplifted his local community. Many of these people are blue collar workers who were adversely affected by the outsourcing of American manufacturing source: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1873826454641004863 Rather than present data-based reporting, @dwnews decided instead to write a hitpiece claiming, despite the weight of evidence, that the opposite is true and that Bitcoin negatively impacts communities. To do this, they firstly didn't report on the widespread and well documented benefits, but instead dredged up a tired story about Greenidge Generation, and with it a whole pile of misinformation that has been debunked countless times, including "Bitcoin mining is heating up lake Seneca" (no it's not, there is a marginal temperature at the point of discharge, akin to adding a drop of warm water to a cold bath. Actual thermal imaging data shows the Lake Seneca temperature is colder than the surrounding lakes (source: https://x.com/level39/status/1412632951251161091) Then there was the obligatory consulting the work of Mandy de Roche, a paid anti-bitcoin lobbyist from Earthjustice. What they didn't tell you was that Earthjustice and DEC's contention that Greenidge was causing environmental harm was thrown out of court by a supreme court judge, after it was found that DEC acted in a manner that was "affected by errors of law and arbitrary and capricious” (source: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1863397875750707271) They also forgot to mention that Bitcoin's emission intensity is 288 g CO2e/kWh (source: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2025/cambridge-study-sustainable-energy-rising-in-bitcoin-mining/) , much lower than the banking sector (464 g CO2e/kWh which Bitcoin obviates in the same way that eVs obviate fossil fuel based transport) Then there was the lazy and predictable attempt to neuro-associate Bitcoin with Trump "as US President Donald Trump loosens cryptocurrency rules" - with no effort to inform readers that Bitcoin adopters mirror the general population in their political orientation (source: https://x.com/thetrocro/status/1815491549704438090) and that long before Trump embraced Bitcoin, these 21 human rights activists did (https://www.financialinclusion.tech/) The article completes its distortion by failing to mention that Bitcoin has been found to help mitigate methane, accelerate the green energy transition, obviate fossil fuels through heat recycling, and support UNSDGs in 20 peer reviewed journals (source: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1923014527651615182) and 7 independent reports (source: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1922666207754281449) as well as having been found by Cambridge to be 52% powered by sustainable energy (source: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2025/cambridge-study-sustainable-energy-rising-in-bitcoin-mining/) - higher than any industry on the planet including, and trending more sustainable each year. All in all its stenograph journalism: rhetoric - not reporting, using the rhetorical technique of "guilt by association" (Trump bad. Trump like Bitcoin. Ergo Bitcoin bad) as a proxy for fact-based reporting. This technique only works if you also engage in error-by-omission regarding the extensive counter-evidence of community enrichment and environmental benefits - which is exactly what DWNews journalist Gaea Katreena Cabico did. She even interviewed both @thetrocro and @jyn_urso who would have given her the full picture of environmental and community benefit (which didn't register a mention in the article). This suggests this article was not born out of ignorance, but intentional distortion to fit a pre-conceived narrative. One thing I learnt today - if you want rhetoric, @DWNews is your place. If you want research - look at the high quality independent reports on Bitcoin mining like these ones: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1922666213991199194