Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#481

Post by seizethecheese » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

mtberatwork wrote: post #434

gragas wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If hundreds of pieces of direct evidence don't suffice, then I'm not sure what does. The Clinton Foundation has done countless extremely illegal and unethical things. Between CTR, the Bernie fiasco, the fake Craigslist ads, the "public and private" positions, I'm not sure how you can say that HRC isn't trying to create an alternate reality.

Not sure I entirely buy this, Charity Watch gives the Clinton Foundation high marks. [1] You might be able to make some arguments for crossing some ethical lines, but to say they have done "countless extremely illegal and unethical things" is pushing the conspiratorial line. [1] https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillar...

There's very little investigative reporting on the actual charity activities of the Clinton Foundation. Here's one article: http://fusion.net/story/357169/hillary-clinton-foundation-vi...

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#482

Post by sctb » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #143

This story keeps getting flagged as a dupe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12724507 for another thread that was on front page when most of US was asleep https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 Mods, would it possible to keep this story up?

The Twitter thread got buried mostly by flags and the flamewar detector, and though we usually override those penalties when it's clear that another discussion will just take its place, sometimes we're sleeping off another political controversy.

We'll avoid marking this one as a duplicate and try to merge the discussions as best we can.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#483

Post by the_duke » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

gragas wrote: post #383

alistproducer2 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now Agreed. It's like some people somewhere woke up and realized hiring some script kiddies to hack old people that use the same password for all their accounts is a lot cheaper and easier than old-fashioned espionage. The frenzied pace at which all of this is happening reminds me a child with a new toy. >gaslighting from both sides I disagree that Clinton is tr…

If hundreds of pieces of direct evidence don't suffice, then I'm not sure what does. The Clinton Foundation has done countless extremely illegal and unethical things. Between CTR, the Bernie fiasco, the fake Craigslist ads, the "public and private" positions, I'm not sure how you can say that HRC isn't trying to create an alternate reality.

Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works.

The view the plebs demands often don't align with either the politicians vision for the country, what's possible near or long term, or the people you are indebted to (donors, etc).

In many cases it's acceptable and even advisable, in my opinion.

A head of state has insight into facts and knowledge of others about realities and facts that most will / can / not understand (and SOMETIMES shouldn't even be known publicly).

What's not acceptable is if a politician is a puppet for donors.

The amount of money and network it takes to become president in the US is ridiculous, and basically necessitates being dirty and indebted.

---

Also, Clinton is most likely no worse than most previous presidents. There's just considerably more information about her.

But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#484

Post by mejari » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

dlss wrote: post #477

mejari wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets and wild conspiracy theories. You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility.

> Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets I was surprised by your claim that wikileaks posted something antisemitic, so I googled for it. Is http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikil... what you're talking about? I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews"). Like, the article's explanation of…

>I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews").

It's using the clearly anti-Semitic (((echo))) format, and linking those people to a mysterious cabal working against them. That is an incredibly standard anti-Semitic view. In what way is that not prejudiced against Jews?

>Hanlon's razor is the obvious objection, and goes unaddressed.

What is Hanlon's razor for including an anti-Semitic key in their tweet? I'm honestly asking what the simpler explanation is for them including that, and then going on to link (((those people))) to an international conspiracy, something people have accused Jews of for centuries.

>Interesting, any you'd care to link?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_...

>I'm merely assuming they aren't going to be obviously incompetent? Like, maybe the phrasing will be self-serving... but look at GP... he's seriously suggesting that they may have mistaken a gardening accident for a state actor...

Intentionally misleading/lying isn't being incompetent. They could know or think that it was an accident, but intentionally spin it as foul play to reinforce the narrative they've been spinning.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#485

Post by daveloyall » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #423

tomp wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary => no change. Trump => change. Positive or negative? Who knows...

What do you mean, "who knows"? Seriously, I have no idea how you can listen to anything Trump says and come away with the idea that he represents positive change. Granted, most of Trump's output is not even properly formed sentences, so maybe he's doing a malformed data denial-of-service attack on voters' senses?

That's an excellent way to describe it. Most of his verbal quirks appear to be designed to get around various filters.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#486

Post by ComteDeLaFere » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

niftich wrote: post #471

ComteDeLaFere wrote: post #469

From the article - "There was no way to immediately verify if he had been knocked offline, and if so, how a state actor was suspected." As far as I can tell, no one has verified any of this. Given JA's recent bizarre state of mind, I'm not sure where all of this breathless HN commentary is coming from.

How could one verify this?

You just proved my point. How does he know it's a "state actor"?

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#487

Post by belorn » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #386

edanm wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty well known that Assange has a vendetta against Hillary Clinton. Just searching for Assange Clinton on Google brings up lots of articles on the subject.

No, it's pretty well known that Assange claims to have a vendetta against HRC. The details of that vendetta don't make much sense. It's clearly easier for him and his supporters to claim that they're acting out of enmity towards Clinton --- a minor figure in virtually all of Assange's dealings with the US --- than to simply cop to the fact that they are aggressively and overly supporting Donald Trump. Nerddom and the…

Could you link to statements where Assange is given praise to Trump and encouraging people to vote for Trump, you know like quality comments do that make assertion about peoples intentions. It would be a nice change to the many political opinions being thrown around here that assume that people can't just hate both political figures and view them both as corrupt and harmful.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#488

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #447

tptacek wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's pretty well known that Assange claims to have a vendetta against HRC. The details of that vendetta don't make much sense. It's clearly easier for him and his supporters to claim that they're acting out of enmity towards Clinton --- a minor figure in virtually all of Assange's dealings with the US --- than to simply cop to the fact that they are aggressively and overly supporting Donald Trump. Nerddom and the…

Interesting. I was under the impression that it was mostly a vendetta against Clinton, not support of Trump. I don't pay that much attention to Assange or Wikileaks to be honest, I personally find quite a lot of what they do distasteful.

Yeah. I understand why you think this: it is the dominant media narrative. But think critically about it for a minute: I think it falls apart.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#489

Post by notahacker » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

cb18 wrote: post #476

DougN7 wrote: post #187

I am getting so damn sick of all of the corruption we're seeing in governments all around the world, including the US/UK. Makes me want to vote for Trump and take the whole crooked system down (unfortunately, that would cause a LOT of pain for good everyday people).

unfortunately, that would cause a LOT of pain for good everyday people Consider that it is the crooked system that has led you to believe that. See this, newly released, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY shocking stuff.

I consider the unedited content of Trump's speeches to be pretty good evidence of his intent to cause a lot of pain for everyday people.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#490

Post by dleslie » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

mejari wrote: post #417

dleslie wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Wikileaks notified of an incoming set of documents dangerous to the DNC well before those Trump videos arose.

They did that repeatedly with nothing delivered, previously. All of a sudden they feel the need to actually release something.

They released on-schedule; they filter through the data they receive to avoid releasing information that can endanger individuals. This takes time, and they made it clear that it would be completed close to the election.