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

611–620 of 1001 posts

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

#611

Post by zzleeper »

tptacek wrote: post #602
gaius wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Wikileaks is definitely anti-Clinton but it's a stretch to say they're pro-Trump.

People keep saying that. It is the single most common rebuttal given to this argument. But I can't understand how it makes any sense at all. It's a two-person race. It's zero-sum. To materially oppose one candidate is to materially support the other. That is, i assume, why Trump's campaign keeps claiming they coordinate directly with Assange through an intermediary. Can someone (calmly) explain why anyone should take…

I think Assange doesn't care that much who is elected, as long as it's not Hillary (because of the things she did against him and the things she promised to do). In this case his only choice is Trump, but it could have been others.

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

#612

Post by daveheq »

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…

Releasing what people said and wrote is not propaganda, it's leaking. Choosing to release only things that make one candidate look bad is propaganda-ish, but to label leaks propaganda is to say it's bad to leak bad things the candidates have said or written, which I completely disagree with.

I want to know the dirt on our candidates because they will LIE LIE LIE as Trump put it.

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

#613

Post by narrator »

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…

Based on my reading of the emails, their morality is similar to that of members of a college fraternity trying to pull off the biggest prank imaginable, except the prank is not harmless. The absolute delight in being able to do this repeatedly and get away with it is what keeps these people going. It helps them reenforce their feelings of superiority and thus self-justifies their right to do just about anything they want to.

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

#614

Post by tptacek »

zzleeper wrote: post #611
tptacek wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep saying that. It is the single most common rebuttal given to this argument. But I can't understand how it makes any sense at all. It's a two-person race. It's zero-sum. To materially oppose one candidate is to materially support the other. That is, i assume, why Trump's campaign keeps claiming they coordinate directly with Assange through an intermediary. Can someone (calmly) explain why anyone should take…

I think Assange doesn't care that much who is elected, as long as it's not Hillary (because of the things she did against him and the things she promised to do). In this case his only choice is Trump, but it could have been others.

To believe that Assange is motivated by a vendetta against HRC, you not only have to conjure up a plausible motive for that vendetta despite Clinton's marginal role in any of the US's dealings with Wikileaks, but also rationalize his efforts to put into power someone who has promised to put Edward Snowden to death.

No, not buying it.

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

#615

Post by droopybuns »

pdx wrote: post #554
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…

To further what you're saying. Wikileaks announced for weeks when they were releasing the emails. It was a pre-planned event that the entire world was waiting for. The Trump tape, which had obviously been saved for a rainy day, was trotted out to distract from the pre-announced Wikileaks release. This level of premeditated collusion with the media is not even up for debate at this point, since the very emails they ar…

I'd like to suggest a more significant conclusion.

The trust I have had in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS, Democratic and Republican parties has been irreparably damaged.

I've been a cord cutter for over a decade. This year I graduated to pitying people who repeat the latest front page story as naive fear-junkies. Everything is suspect. Why burn processing cycles reading stories that on their face are actually stupid with conclusions that are unsupported by verifiable facts? (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cia-prepping-possible-cy...)

Between the Sponsored Content, Native Ads and all of the investigative journalists who (according to DNC emails) are labeled as "friends," I have no choice but to say "I quit." They are pretty lies that don't nourish!

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

#616

Post by skylan_q »

sytelus wrote: post #583
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…

Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. Sure, there is some amusing stuff and quipes by aggressive campaign staff about opponents but nothing that can points to big corruption directly on Clinton's part. The media coverage is unexpectedly very low but I can see why media will want to put these rather boring emai…

DNC collusion with the media is one that stands out to me. Also the acknowledgement that ISIS is funded in part by Saudi Arabia while the Clinton Foundation gets many donations from Saudi Arabia.

If you have some time, scroll through the Wikileaks Twitter. Very little noise, mostly content. https://twitter.com/wikileaks

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

#617

Post by Kadin »

grey-area wrote: post #526
JohnStrange wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with your analysis. To add to this, I've been watching US media closely over the past few months and have never seen them so biased in any matter before, including past elections. It appears to me that there is not a single news source in the US that does not entirely follow some political agenda. There seem to be no dissenters or cautious writers left. Most of them are biased against Trump, of cou…

I think the answer is simpler than some grand conspiracy of the global media elite (insert your preferred shadowy cabal here) , the sort of people who work in news agencies simply are not alienated enough from the current system to see trump as anything other than a danger to the current system of representative gov. and they also don't like being demonised and slandered by Trump, this requires no conspiracy, just th…

Agreed. I also think this is generally quite often true: what people perceive to be conspiracies are often as not instead emergent behaviors, rooted in the independent self-interested actions of a large number of individuals, acting with very loose or no coordination at all.

Conspiracies, when they happen, seem to rather often fail; those requiring secrecy are in particular prone to failure. But people act according to their own interests all the time, and when their interests are even slightly aligned the outcome can certainly resemble or even be indistinguishable from an actively-managed conspiracy.

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

#618

Post by threeseed »

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?

Assange is stuck in an embassy in the UK. Any normal, rational person would want to leave that situation.

Hillary has made it quite clear that would never happen however Trump has been far more supportive of Assange especially since Wikileaks has been his biggest asset.

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

#619

Post by tanderson92 »

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…

Q: do you believe that there is a need for workers to seize the means of production?

If the answer is "no", you're not part of the left and you're likely more of a liberal then.

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

#620

Post by skylan_q »

gotchange wrote: post #608
sytelus wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. Sure, there is some amusing stuff and quipes by aggressive campaign staff about opponents but nothing that can points to big corruption directly on Clinton's part. The media coverage is unexpectedly very low but I can see why media will want to put these rather boring emai…

> Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? That's my main problem with all these arguments «false equivalency» in their pursuit of seeming and sounding fair, balanced and impartial, they resort to equate all the horrendous things that Trump said or did with these harmless details that Hillary or her chief of staff said behind closed doors or in private emails. It's just not right and unfair for Hillary…

These are completely different things. What's in those emails is FAR more damming than some foul-mouthed quips. Gross FCC violations, for one.
Post reply on HN