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

711–720 of 1001 posts

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

#711

Post by angry-hacker »

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.

Well, most of the countries you're not guilty before proven... Right now I'm not sure. Because of all these stupid false allegations the meaning of raping someone has devalued in the eyes of society.

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

#712

Post by existencebox »

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…

Let me take on that question, as someone who would willingly attack Hillary while simultaneously refusing to support Trump.

If I want to be internally consistent as a supporter of truth/justice/liberty/all those tasty things, I MUST NOT hesitate to release damaging information along those lines for the sake of a "lesser of two evils" justification. Your statement of zero-sum two person race is also a principle I believe one must sacrifice a "lesser of two evils" discussion to rally against, I believe that accepting we are in a two person race is part and parcel with the level of polarization/group-think we're seeing nowadays. The first steps to a better world in my eyes are to question EVERYTHING and become as vehemently anti-tribal as possible, and that means not withholding things that my moral code would demand I act on, even if it might harm the horse I'm rooting for. (quite to the opposite actually, if I saw that my main candidate had flaws and wasn't getting called out on them, I would see it as my obligation to do so even MORE so, since to whitewash in that direction to my eyes weakens what would otherwise be a valid stance. e.g., all things have negatives, even perhaps a positive choice, but to ignore them is duplicitous.)

tl;dr, my goals in this are not "this election" or "this candidate"; it's "getting people to question more"; "getting people to realize it doesn't NEED to be a zero-sum game". One may say this is idealistic/drop in the ocean etc; but I cannot reconcile with my personal philosophy giving up, because if I did, then there is no justification for ANYONE ELSE to push for these "impossible" goals, and thus the status quo/tragedy of the commons continues.

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

#714

Post by ptaipale »

tanderson92 wrote: post #619
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…

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.

This is completely tangential to the OP, but what do the "means of production" mean nowadays? It's more and more about intelligence, intelligence property, knowledge and brain power. The latter is clearly owned by the workers who have brains; how do you socialize or nationalize them? And how do you nationalize IPR?

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

#715

Post by awacs »

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,…

I concur with this view. I don't necessarily think the Wikileaks are not valid, but from my point of view, Wikileaks lost all credibility being 100% anti-Hillary, with zero anti-Trump information released. Somehow I don't think the RNC would have much different internal e-mails floating around at this point.

That being said, I read the Goldman transcripts and other things that were supposed to be so damaging, and they really weren't that bad, beyond any other typical politician. Is she corrupt, absolutely. Is there a giant media conspiracy (now including SNL) against Trump? Ridiculous. He makes his own wounds.

In addition, even Mike Pence has now admitted Russia is disseminating information to Wikileaks. So we have a clear connection between Russia / Putin and Trump. I don't believe it's as far as many think with them working together, but clearly someone as thin skinned and easily manipulated as Trump would be a total win for Putin. We can talk about Hillary's collusion, Clinton Foundation corruptness and such, but how the Putin pro Trump position is not as relevant is beyond me, if not the deal breaker considering the state of Russia / American current affairs.

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

#716

Post by JamesBarney »

matthewrobertso wrote: post #673
tptacek wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

No real evidence for this.

http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

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

#717

Post by alphapapa »

the_duke wrote: post #572
pdx wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding, but perhaps understandable. You recognize and admit (as you have no choice doing, after the mountain of proof) that the media willingly prostitutes itself to further the cause of the current administration, with no regard for actual truth. But you allow yourself to be influenced in your opinion of Donald Trump by that same media. Imagine if a mean girl in your office told ever…

I don't need the media's opinion on Donald Trump. Watching a video of one of his rallies or a debate is sufficient to form my own opinion. He (is) - lies or distorts the truth almost everytime he opens his mouth - extremely authoritarian - very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wo…

> very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...)

I guess you haven't been paying attention. Trump was, for many years, a celebrity, making millions of dollars for NBC with his TV shows. Everything about him that they complain about now they happily accepted then, when it suited them.

For example, where was this 11-year-old video during the primaries? Answer that question and you will begin to understand what's going on here.

This "anti-free-media" claim is weird when you compare it to Clinton's campaign. For nearly a year she had zero press conferences--not even giving the media a chance. Now we find that her campaign specifically wanted to avoid answering any questions, to prevent the media from having a chance to question her about inconvenient stories. And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc.

So shouldn't you at least claim that she is as anti-free-media as he is?

> But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me.

There is much more at stake here than these two individual people running for the office. The real contest here is between the movements they represent.

One of these two campaigns has been co-opted by a candidate who is not even a member of it. How did this candidate do so? With the help of the media, which vehemently attacked all other candidates during the primaries.

Now that same media is trying to destroy that candidate. That candidate is virtually a strawman candidate, set up for the sake of being torn down.

So, what does that tell you? Based on that, which candidate--which movement--should one vote for?

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

#718

Post by oh_sigh »

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,…

NYT tried to push their Trump sex assault stories, but the stories were just "They said that Trump did something bad many years ago", with no proof, no witnesses, no evidence at all, other than their word.

And then some of the women show up on TV with their lawyer, Gloria Allred, who is in close connection with HRCs campaign(as attested by the Podesta wikileaks) and has vowed her support for HRC to win. And then there is strange behavior from some of the accusers, like begging Trump to visit their restaurant/business, which would be a strange thing to do to someone who sexually assaulted you(not impossible behavior, but all of these things add up)

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

#719

Post by spaceheeder »

r_smart wrote: post #710
spaceheeder wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. Insults do not qualify as debate. His claim is based on, or should include, the portions of the Podesta emails that have showed a dismaying amount of coordination with the press. Approving quotes, approving stories, printing talking points. Compare their behavior against the g…

You and I must understand entirely different things when we read the phrase "premeditated collusion with the media."

Those media organizations and those journalists may have editorial and personal opinions on who they would prefer to win the election, but there's one thing they care more about than any of those preferences: access.

The idea that the press wouldn't or shouldn't care about vacuuming up every talking point that a campaign is willing to spit out, no matter how obviously-canned it is, is to fundamentally misunderstand the operations of the 24 hour news cycle.

This isn't happening because journos care about Hillary Clinton. This is an alignment of the incentives of politicians and journalists that ultimately reduces transparency and harms public discourse. The fact that the same thing likely isn't happening with the Trump campaign says more about the peculiarities of that campaign than it says anything about the same media companies' willingness to play the same game of ball with Generic Q. Republican.

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

#720

Post by harryf »

mejari wrote: post #656
harryf wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh you mean that thing that is currently everywhere right now? Thanks for reminding me! Almost had my mind off it for 2 minutes while reading this Intercept article about Hillary's relationship with the press https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak...

You... you literally brought it up yourself. Why are you angry at me for responding to your own point?

Why do you assume I'm angry? I'm quite happy while questioning your agenda
Post reply on HN