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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by acomjean »

xenadu02 wrote: post #655
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…

I've read many of the emails. There just isn't much to them. It's almost all boring day-to-day crap. Even the release of Clinton's speech transcripts is about as mild and inoffensive as you can get. The other thing is we have no idea if they are all authentic. It would be trivial to slip a few extra sentences in here or there. Everyone just seems to take it as given that they're legit but Assange didn't hack anyone t…

>The other thing is we have no idea if they are all authentic. It would be trivial to slip a few extra sentences in here or there.

This.

There has been no verification that these are completely real emails (the checksum matches so to speak).

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

#742

Post by bduerst »

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…

>The Trump tape, which had obviously been saved for a rainy day

WashPo released it on the same day that they got it, after several hours verifying it's authenticity.

That's not evidence to fit your claim of premeditated collusion.

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

#743

Post by NumberCruncher »

droopybuns wrote: post #615
pdx wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

The funny thing is that news are mostly lies or half truths about events they would still be irrelevant to your life even if the news were 100% true:

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

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

#744

Post by DominikR »

xenadu02 wrote: post #667
skylan_q wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Two things: 1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. Even when campaign staffers suggested bad things they got shot down. The email releases have been one big nothing-burger after another. The media is like a toddler... unless you have something interesting going on their attention wanes quickly. 2. The Trump sexual assault tape is not bad because he had a foul mouth. In some cases…

> 1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them.

So you have read _all_ the emails and thanks to your superior judgement you can now explain to us peasants how it all doesn't matter.

Whats interesting is that your deflection contains zero substance, you just call it a nothing burger.

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

#745

Post by tptacek »

existencebox wrote: post #712
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…

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 beli…

To believe that's what Assange is trying to do, you'd have to explain away the drip-drip scheduling of the releases and the (often false) editorializing he does with decontextualized snippets from the email leaks. It's not simply that Assange is exclusively leaking stolen emails from Democrats, but the manner in which he's doing it.

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

#746

Post by tptacek »

ikeboy wrote: post #689
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.

The obvious theory for Trump support would be: He thinks Trump will severely harm America, and he really hates America.

I assume that's what he's doing. Think about that, though: to fuck over America, he'll help elect someone who has promised to kill Edward Snowden.

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

#747

Post by artursapek »

angry-hacker wrote: post #707
xenadu02 wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 trie…

That's not the point. Is it only left or right in America? Both candidates are rubbish and if you support Hillary you're no better than your average Trump's redneck.

I'm seeing a lot of people deciding who to vote for by deciding which candidate they dislike less - not which they like more. Is that normal in US presidential elections? This is the first one I've followed.

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

#748

Post by cmurf »

novalis78 wrote: post #709
skylan_q wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been there for a while. I only trust a few people who thanklessly go through materials and study issues in detail. If I want to verify further I can only then trust primary sources and direct evidence. For a long time now, all forms of traditional media have had a bent. It's just gotten very monied and politicized as of late.

One option of course, which as a European who had to live with media-government collusion his whole life, is to triangulate: Read foreign media, read political opponents views on the same topic as the mainstream media, read (if available) conflicting mainstream media stories. Take it all in, and triangulate. Very often the BS from one side cancels out the BS from the other side and you are not closer to reality. But…

Yes, this was something explicitly taught in political science. It's important to understand the paper and writer bias, by reading multiple sources it's possible to unwind the ideology to a fairly good degree - and triangulate.

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

#749

Post by ZoF »

sitic wrote: post #559
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

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/

That's not even close to equivalent.

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

#750

Post by bduerst »

xenadu02 wrote: post #667
skylan_q wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Two things: 1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. Even when campaign staffers suggested bad things they got shot down. The email releases have been one big nothing-burger after another. The media is like a toddler... unless you have something interesting going on their attention wanes quickly. 2. The Trump sexual assault tape is not bad because he had a foul mouth. In some cases…

Definitely agree on #1 - even Assange knew there was nothing in the emails which is why there was no "October surprise."

Now they're releasing the emails in parcels to manipulate the 24 hour news cycle - e.g. "More Hillary Emails leaked!"

There's no smoking gun in those emails, and the majority of the "There's a lot there" statements boil down to examples like this: http://i.imgur.com/eRRc02n.png?1

Post reply on HN