Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

I'm still processing this information, and holding out to form a full opinion until more details become available/confirmed. In the meantime, I'm curious, for people who are angry about this: suppose it is actually true that Assange is working together with Russian hackers in an attempt to influence a US election. Do you believe there is any point at which governments should intervene to protect national sovereignty…

Acting against wikileaks would not be protecting the democratic process.

The democratic process is about open and free exchange of ideas and transparency.

Keeping information secret by attacking journalists does NOT support democracy.

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

#672
post #554

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…

> Wikileaks announced for weeks when they were releasing the emails. It was a pre-planned event that the entire world was waiting for.

Was it actually week(s) plural? I thought they only came out about a week late.

> The Trump tape, which had obviously been saved for a rainy day, was trotted out to distract from the pre-announced Wikileaks release.

I think this is a little much. Some cast and crew from The Apprentice made some noise about how generally unpleasant Donald Trump was, and multiple parties started seeking unused footage from that show. NBC also had the Access Hollywood video and were preparing it for release, but got scooped when someone leaked it to the Washington Post reporter who investigated the Tump Foundation.

No event in the chain happened without precedence and, to be perfectly frank, none of the information that has come out has been a genuine shock. The overwhelming majority of the damage done by the Access Hollywood footage has been because Donald Trump a) did a very poor job in delivering his apology, strategically speaking and b) from a), set himself up to have yet more sunlight disinfect his past.

> This level of premeditated collusion with the media is not even up for debate at this point

Ooh, me, me, I debate it. This is a dumb thing to say and you should feel dumb for saying it. It makes no sense and is not based on anything.

> I have to wonder how many years (decades?) this has been occurring.

Probably ever since the industry started to consolidate. Just because it happens doesn't mean that it happening means what you think it means, if that makes any sense [1].

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/477656-when-you-re-young-you...

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

#673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does HRC wanting to drone strike Assange qualify as something he might be concerned about?

https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assang...

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

#675
post #559

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

Infowars is paying 5k USD for shouting “Bill Clinton is a rapist” on national TV, which has now happed serveral times during Clion campain events. Infowars itself has close ties to the Trump campain, as his surrogate Roger Stone appears often on Alex Jones show. [1] http://www.infowars.com/expose-rapist-bill-clinton-win-5k/

You are obviously missing the point here:

Infowars does not hide it - it is on their website.

Clinton campaign's plots/schemes would have remained unknown to the public, if not for Wikileaks.

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

#676
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…

You are expressing a possibility that has a low probability of being true.

The hidden video he released today looks incontrovertible. One can only imagine all the other things these dark political operatives do if they were willing to discuss what they did so explictly with people they presumably don't know well.

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

#677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That website is frankly misleading. Their classifications of "overhead" are ridiculous. Look at the actual filing from the Clinton Foundation itself: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinto... Page 18 and 19. Out of a budget of $217 million, they spent $34 million on direct program expenditures. That's about 16%, not 88% as your link would lead us to believe. Additionally, what is this money spen…

Why are you excluding the salaries and benefits paid to people working on programs and services? Paying someone to do something like provide training or administer vaccines is reasonable to describe as a program and service expense, it's not overhead. It's easy to imagine situations where that money is not being spent 100% efficiently, but it also seems unlikely that it is being spent perfectly inefficiently.

It's really a pointless argument, because the overhead on a non-charitable non-profit doesn't really matter. But you do have a point when looking at traditional charities.

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

#679

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…

Here's a summary of most of what has been found in the emails so far: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vefh/podesta_... Some of the things found were: 1. The Goldman Sachs speeches, showing that Hillary has a "public and private position", is still against gay marriage, wants open borders, wants to enact gun bans, and wants to establish a hemispheric common market. 2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign ch…

> 1. The Goldman Sachs speeches, showing that Hillary has a "public and private position", is still against gay marriage, wants open borders, wants to enact gun bans, and wants to establish a hemispheric common market.

With the exception of a common market I must strongly disagree with your assessments.

I'll also point out that everyone has public and private positions and everyone except the most socially inept tries to tailor what they say to their audience to get a better reception. That's half of being a politician: glad-handing and smooth-talking your constituents and colleagues into going along with your plan.

> 2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign chair) giving a list of "needy latinos" to call.

What's your point? Is that supposed to compare to calling Mexicans rapists, saying more countries should have nuclear weapons, calling for a ban on muslim immigrants, saying you want veto-power over the press, claiming US elections are illegitimate, attacking a Gold Star family, ... I mean I could go on and on and on here.

> 3. The DNC planning fake Trump assault scandals

I haven't seen anything legit on this. Care to elaborate? I know some campaign staffers have occasionally proposed really stupid ideas but they were always shot down. If there is proof that anyone actually carried out such a plan please let us know.

> 4. Clinton Campaign Discusses Which Emails To "Hold" Hours After Subpoena

This is standard practice. It's called a document retention notice and every single company in the US follows this exact procedures. The court orders you to deliver evidence and you must figure out which documents are covered under that order. If you just backed up all your servers and dumped them on the court wholesale you'd be held in contempt.

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

#680

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…

Usually when people tell me about some of the awful things that were said in the e-mail Wikileaks released I go look at the original e-mail and read it in full. It's almost always the case that if you read these statements in context, they just aren't that offensive.

For instance, the comment about public/private positions is one of the most common ones you hear people complain about (and Clinton was asked about it during the debate). Here's the full statement:

"You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work."

I would encourage everyone to look at the original source anytime someone makes a claim about what was said in the e-mail.

Post reply on HN