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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by alistproducer2 »

smsm42 wrote: post #598
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.

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.…

I agree with your assessment. HRC represents the "devil you know" to many people vs. "the one you don't" (Trump). A lot of how people feel is fueled by our hyperbolic, news-as-entertainment industry, but not all of it.

It's not irrational paranoia to believe your government operates as a separate entity, one that is not subject to the rule of law. From the Iraq war, to torture, to retroactively legal bulk collection, to immunity granted to telecoms for doing illegal surveillance, to no one going to jail in response to 2008, the list goes on and on.

We have a government all too happy to throw millions of us in jail for the most minor of offenses, yet the same rules don't appear to apply to the people constantly on our TV screens or ones that aren't with enough connections.

HRC is not the devil, but she represents something deeply unsavory to a lot of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

Trump is an obvious mad man. The fact that so many people are willing to give such a man the ability to unilaterally destroy humanity speaks volumes about where western civilization is at right now.

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

#692

Post by takeda »

AvenueIngres wrote: post #363
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…

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

They did the same with Bernie supporters. Seems like it works well for them.

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

#693

Post by xenadu02 »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #520
mtberatwork wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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…

And Trump uses his charity to pay off his businesses legal settlements.

Every time we get a new accusation from Trump (Clinton Foundation is a slush fund!!!) it turns out that Trump is actually the one doing it.

It's classic mis-direction. Accuse your opponent first to put them on the defensive, then when evidence if your own wrongdoing comes out you can muddy the waters and say no one has clean hands.

The Clintons used their personal connections and foundation money to lobby drug companies to give massive discounts on AIDs drugs to poor people. They've literally saved thousands of lives.

Trump's charity has done nothing charitable. He hasn't even donated to it in many years.

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

#694

Post by kyledrake »

tptacek wrote: post #614
zzleeper wrote: post #611

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.

This is a really good point. HRC isn't necessarily good for Wikileaks, but Trump would conceivably be a lot, lot worse.

Perhaps the idea is that they might get off easier if Trump feels Wikileaks gave him an election present, but I find that to be a high risk gamble, especially at this point. That said, the argument could perhaps just as easily be made if they leaked a bunch of Trump stuff too.

I don't think anyone can really determine motives at this point with the current base of information.

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

#695

Post by yarou »

greendragon wrote: post #664
yarou wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are very astute, I only wish that my fellow countrymen would wake up to the truth. I truly believe Trump is a populist reformer, trying to help the Everyman. But keep in mind that even though the Populares were nominally "for the people", they only used them for their own ends. They were very much as political as the Optimates . It's a sad state of affairs when a relative madman looks like a saner alternative to…

Scott Adams has noted how Trump's views evolve to the people's, I do agree in thinking he's a populist. Would any of the other GOP candidates have had a gay man speak at the RNC? Populists can be dangerous, but they can also do a lot of good. It seems worth a chance in the current environment, though ever since I read this passage from http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm I've been wary of those with mass s…

Thanks for the link, it definitely gives me something to ponder over.

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

#696

Post by [deleted] »

rtx wrote: post #591
anigbrowl wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#697

Post by phy6 »

mikeash wrote: post #244
Kenji wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about Hillary Clinton literally saying "Can't we just drone this guy?" [1] [1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562

Yes, a drone strike in the middle of the capital city of our closest ally, obviously that was a serious suggestion....

Tongue-in-cheek: President Bill Clinton later apologized for the bombing, stating it was accidental. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_C...

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

#698

Post by ghurtado »

slg wrote: post #385
Yetanfou wrote: post #254

Sweden has hunted Assange for 6 years for the 'crime' of being promiscuous with the wrong women. Oh, and he did not use a condom, but the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards. Only later when those two women who thought they'd scored a celebrity found out he'd been rather generous in dealing out his celebrity amongst those who offered him hospitality did they come with a claim of rape. S…

>the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards >the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before I don't care what you think about this specific case, but statements like these show a great deal of ignorance about how most sex crimes happen and the relationship between the abuser and the victim.

I don't see anything ignorant about expecting that the burden of proof in cases of rape requires more evidence than a statement from the victim, specially when all the circumstantial evidence goes directly against said statement.

"Rape can happen under complex emotional mechanics, therefore the word of the victim is sufficient to prosecute and jail the accused, as this overrides any other objective evidence" isn't a position likely to be enshrined into law any time soon.

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

#699

Post by grandalf »

javajosh wrote: post #666
droopybuns wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

It saddens me greatly to hear this sentiment reflected here at Hacker News. To reject the entire institution of journalism is a radical position, and not justified by fact. Manipulating the timing of release is a common tool used by literally every public figure and institution. To characterize timing manipulation as collusion and to imply that it means no-one can be trusted is a critical mistake. Given my position,…

How is the NYT trustworthy. The front page contains a dozen or so anti-Trump stories and zero about anything in the email leaks. I want to trust the NYTimes but it's hard to take seriously a paper that ignores something important. The same would be true if it had ignored Trump's leaked tax docs.

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

#700

Post by dancek »

nstj wrote: post #638

675 comments and no one actually knows what we're talking about. What does "cut" mean? Why can't he just use a hotspot?

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865

So if Ecuador decided to cut his internet access, they may just have confiscated every device Assange has.

Post reply on HN