Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591

Post by rtx »

anigbrowl wrote: post #574
xname2 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Only the raw video matters. They should publish all the raw video. Otherwise, everything in the video is just fake.

I worked for years as a film professional, including screenwriting and editing. It is very easy to lie with footage. The craft of editing is to make the edits disappear so that changes in camera angles and content appear natural and seamless. We employ misdirection to exploit a phenomenon in the brain known as suture, which creates the illusion of continuity. As a simple example, in a narrative film I'll cut from ang…

What's your opininon on the linked video.

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

#592

Post by shireboy »

danielnaab wrote: post #533
AvenueIngres wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Directly related to what you are saying, DNC consultants and execs caught on tape explaining how they plant fake Trump supporters at rallies to disrupt them or get negative media coverage. It is pretty interesting from: 1/ a partisan PoV, 2/ a methodological PoV; you are right there is a war for information that is being waged. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

The first question to ask with any James O'Keefe video is "where is the raw video." He has a long and sordid history of fabricating these kinds of storylines.

As long as you hold Michael Moore to the same standard.

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

#593

Post by darawk »

ihsw wrote: post #538
the_duke wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

There is a difference between what you're describing is different from what is occurring -- she campaigns on LGTB rights and freedoms but her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs. She tries to run on anti-establishment but there is no-one that is more establishment than her. She tries to run on fighting for women's rights but she is an apologist for her husband's sordid history of sexual abu…

> There is a difference between what you're describing is different from what is occurring -- she campaigns on LGTB rights and freedoms but her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs.

Source?

> She tries to run on anti-establishment but there is no-one that is more establishment than her.

Sure, but that's just marketing, not substance.

> She tries to run on fighting for women's rights but she is an apologist for her husband's sordid history of sexual abuse towards other women, and not only that but she will readily accept funds from people that are the most misogynistic on the face of the Earth (the Gulf monarchies).

It is not clear that Clinton ever sexually abused women. He cheated on his wife, yes. But that is a far cry from 'sexual abuse'.

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

#594

Post by mark_l_watson »

fnovd wrote: post #479
mark_l_watson wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel comfortable telling anyone who to vote for - a personal decision that is no one else's business. I will say that for myself, when I was filling out my early mail-in ballot yesterday, it was an easy decision voting for Jill Stein. Our political system is corrupt and when lots of people (in the many millions) vote for 3rd party candidates, that at least makes it harder for the establishment to maintain the…

>Our political system is corrupt and when lots of people (in the many millions) vote for 3rd party candidates, that at least makes it harder for the establishment to maintain the misdirection that our two party system gives voters any real choice. So you're saying that voting 3rd party makes it harder for "the establishment" to fool people into thinking they had a choice to begin with? That voting makes it harder for…

I don't think I am being fooled, but most people would say that. I totally support friends and family who are voting for Trump and Clinton, even if I like neither of them.

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

#595

Post by darawk »

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.

Can you name an example of an 'extremely illegal' thing they have done?

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

#596

Post by tptacek »

ghostly_s wrote: post #494
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…

What possible reason could Assange have to support Trump?

You'd have to ask him. But that is clearly what he is doing.

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

#597

Post by wbhart »

Iv wrote: post #170

My understanding is that we do not have any proofs of life from Assange. It could be many things: assassination, deal with Ecuador, extradition by Ecuador or someone else, simply an internet censorship, a PR stunt by Assange. All is possible. This guy lives a fucking dystopian nightmare.

The article itself states that Assange is alive and well. The issue is his internet access and what this portends, not whether he is alive.

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

#598

Post by smsm42 »

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.

I must agree with the parent post - Trump and HRC operate in entirely different way. HRC is basically the avatar of corruption, if corruption were personified it would look and act like her. She doesn't need alternative reality, the current reality of the government is completely fine, she feels in it like fish in the water. She knows all the levers, and she knows how to abuse the system and how get away with things. Of course, this requires lying, violating laws and so on - but it's all accounted for in the corrupt system, and all is already part of what they are doing. The only worry is that not too much is publicly revealed and enough power is there to make what is revealed go away. So far it worked fine.

For Trump, it's completely different. His strategy is built on two pillars - exposing the existence of the corrupt system and presenting himself as somebody who can fix it. The second part, unfortunately, is completely false and that's where alternative reality comes in - he needs to paint himself as somebody capable of doing a thing he has no idea how to do and no capability to do. That's why he always proposes over the top things - to capture one's imagination and paint himself as somebody who can do things. The proposal itself does not matter, neither the facts he claims to base it on - what matters is the image of somebody who knows how to do things, and has the guts to do them. Since the reality of his capabilities is rather modest, constant stream of fiction is required to keep this idea alive.

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

#599

Post by tlb »

anthony_romeo wrote: post #237

We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to…

Wikileaks's foundational theory was there were bad organizations and good organizations, and random leaks would impose a 'secrecy tax' on the bad ones, forcing them to take extreme opsec measures which would make them less effective, and this would gradually bend the moral arc of the universe towards goodness.

But be may be seeing another outcome: the greatest tax is on the organizations where its supporters care about what's right and wrong and true and false, while organizations that spew empty invective and bullshit have no tax. Perhaps what we ended up with is an 'intellectual honesty' tax.

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

#600

Post by FireBeyond »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #589
FireBeyond wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a twisting of language. He's perfectly able to. He _chooses_ not to.

You've just justified first world countries creating an artificial prison for political reasons. I am not surprised, as so many Americans justify and support Guantanamo Bay (and the holding of prisoners without charges or trial indefinitely). America has become the Black Mirror reflection of itself and its foundational ideals, and is a terrible world role model.

Funnily, I am not American, though I do live in the US. British, and Australian by birth and heritage.

And I have never once claimed that the US is a role model for the world. In fact, a quick glance at my comment history would show that in many areas, I believe quite the opposite.

The artificial prison was of his own making, not that of any country. He chose to seek asylum, blaming a lurking boogeyman ready to extradite and or execute him, and continued to use this, rebuffing multiple attempts to resolve the issue (and arguably in many ways no other person would be allowed to do, dictating how, when or indeed if he would be allowed to be interviewed).

Certainly, many governments act in appalling ways. But Assange put himself in a predicament where he is now in legal hot water for his _actual_ avoidance of due process for _alleged_ activities.

Not like Guatanamo.

And not like your ad hominem attacks upon me to suit your cause.

Post reply on HN