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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by kpil »

awacs wrote: post #715
javajosh wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

There is an angle on every Trump story, because there have to be an angle - journalism is about angles. There is no reporting of mere facts.

The current angle is that Trump is a bad guy, and you just have to look at the photos of him to get the angle - 99% of him making a weird face.

It does not make the story false, but there is an angle.

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

#802

Post by angry-hacker »

vectorjohn wrote: post #761
angry-hacker wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, wild exaggerated claims are made, they get trivially refuted as bs, and your comment is that's not the point? Really? Get some perspective. Neither candidate is flawless but let's not pretend they're equally so. One is a dangerous megalomaniac, and the other is pretty much a regular standard ass politician.

If you think Hillary is not dangerous you are either clueless about everyday politics or part of her campaign.

But I guess who can use the toilet where is more important than spying on people, taking away their freedom, being habitual liar and hypocrite by taking money from the people who are supposed to be everything you believe in against.

How is Trump any worse? He is just smart enough to think what he's saying, all in all they would make a great team with Hillary.

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

#803

Post by FireBeyond »

Kadin wrote: post #705
FireBeyond wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar: If we applied the laws we used to prosecute the Nazis at Nuremberg, every single post WWII US President/government would be considered to have committed war crimes.

I find it interesting that the Nuremberg Trials are continually held up, often by people who ought to know better, as a shining example of "International Law" and not a fairly straightforward example of the victors of a war taking the opportunity to polish off a few key enemies they missed. Which is a time-honored and not especially surprising practice, but hardly laudable, particularly when it involved some ex post…

Certainly, there's a number of issues with the Nuremberg Trials. They certainly were guided by many motives, not all of which were pure.

But my point is this: the same allies that came up with these reasons for prosecution, created such offenses, have been (not the only) ones to then go on and breach them, steadily, ever since.

i.e. my intent is not necessarily to hold up Nuremberg as a victory for humanity (though certainly _some_ of the things that came about from it are good), but to also implicate many of the allies and governments to follow as very much "do as I say, not as I do".

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

#804

Post by api »

hiringmanager wrote: post #782
ta_donk_gt wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Behavior such as these from CNN: [1] and [2] has been par for the course for the mainstream media as far as I have seen this year. Scare, divert, suppress, collude, whatever it takes to avoid the public getting to the truth if it will hurt their candidate. I just can't understand how this does not scare people. How is this different from the state run media in third-world countries we used to laugh at as kids? It may…

I can say that the media took a sharp turn around 2000-2001 era, especially after 9/11. The rise of 24x7 news outlets and the internet (which has killed journalism in newspapers financially) turned it into basically a PR agency for the government and powerful interests. "Scare, divert, suppress, collude" have been tactics that have gone on at least for the past 16 years. In fact, I think they were going on in the 15…

I wonder how much of Reddit is just paid troll armies battling other paid troll armies?

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

#805

Post by steamer25 »

HillRat wrote: post #260
mikeash wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't possibly isolate it to just Assange, so it must be the whole embassy. My money is on this being an errant backhoe or similar, and Assange is just turning it into a big deal because he can.

On the other hand, "state actor" could certainly refer to Ecuador deciding to turn off Assange's access. WikiLeaks tends to be fairly economical with the truth about its own operations, so being purposefully ambiguous isn't anything new for them. And, while Ecuador hasn't had to deal with meaningful diplomatic repercussions from sheltering Assange, the high-profile role WL is taking in the 2016 elections, and specifi…

Looks like it was in fact Ecuador: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865 .

I haven't seen any word on their explanation, though.

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

#806

Post by HNaTTY »

leereeves wrote: post #173
sverige wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unlawful for you to visit the Wikileaks site. https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7877498936496005...

Is it really unlawful or did CNN lie about that?

Popehat wrote a post about that. TLDR, Cuomo is wrong. https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-...

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

#807

Post by notahacker »

alphapapa wrote: post #636
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…

> Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. The Trump tapes? You mean that one 11-year-old video that shows him talking very crudely about sexual escapades? Sure, that's reprehensible. Is it worse than what past presidents have done while in office? If not, why is it a problem now? Why is one candidate's personal sex life a bigger problem than collusion with the media…

> Why is one candidate's personal sex life a bigger problem than collusion with the media during the campaign

If you're prepared to dismiss allegations of (and supporting boasts about) sexual molestation to simply be "his personal sex life" you have a very screwed up idea of sex and personal space.

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

#808

Post by admax88q »

meddlepal wrote: post #549
admax88q wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in other words: i want the dirt, too. 100% agree. I'm constantly amazed at how some ordinary citizens can be mad at Snowden or Assange for releasing information. Wouldn't you want to know? Even just for interest sake I like to know what government and politicians around the world are up to.

I think many (most?) people are OK with the mantra "ignorance is bliss". HN readership doesn't really represent the average citizen. So while you may want the info that likely doesn't hold for a lot of folks who really only care about a very minor set of immediate concerns (food, shelter, children).

I guess so, I just can't relate to that mentality.

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

#809

Post by gotchange »

droopybuns wrote: post #783
gotchange wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider this piece of journalism as propaganda too? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/world/rise-of-saudi-prince... I could be as much skeptic as you and I can draw my own conclusions for why this particular story might have been published now and not before, and for what purpose, but this doesn't stop me from enjoying reading it and absorbing its juicy details and knowledge. I'm still thankful for NYT for de…

I read this and my first instinct was "what PR team pitched this story?" Maybe none. But one way the times could re establish credibility with me is to be transparent about how much the writer engaged with pr reps or communications teams in each story. It doesn't have to be exhaustive. By the way- Part of my journey to this level of skepticism was "Trust me, I'm Lying" by Ryan Holiday https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-…

A PR/fluff piece that he bought a $500 mln yacht on a whim while calling for austerity in his own country cutting govt employees salaries and benefits?

That would be the worst PR piece you could ask for, unless you mean that you suspect that his political foes were the ones behind this story which is not unlikely but again not a deal-breaker and what's only important to me is the question, were the details listed in the piece factual or not?

Nothing more.

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

#810

Post by mentalpiracy »

smsm42 wrote: post #646
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…

That depends on what is damaging. Is evidence of collusion and cooperation between DNC, media (including sending articles for approval, leaking supposedly secret interview questions and creating content at the request of the campaign, to be published as independently created) and Clinton campaign to get Clinton elected damaging? It might be if you value free press and honest election process, or it might be OK for yo…

Slightly orthogonal to your #5: are you in a current job role where you ever bring up the topic of your customers or your clients in casual discussion? Do you ever refer to either group in less-than-stellar terms?

For my part, I do both. I have bitched and kvetched at times about my clients being cripplingly needy, aggressively brain dead, and the like. I certainly wouldn't say it to their faces, and it doesn't mean I don't rely on their dollars to support my business. Nor either does it mean I am producing lesser-quality work for them.

This is a non-issue. People everywhere bitch about the outsiders they have to deal with in language that would never be used in business proper.

It is a massive chasm of difference between calling a group "needy" and categorizing them as illegals, rapists and murderers.

Post reply on HN