Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' • Hacker News Board

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

#811

Post by shoehornhands » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:21 PM UTC

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 trust I have had in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS, Democratic and Republican parties has been irreparably damaged.

To borrow a phrase that usually makes me think of a milennial with a punchable face, "This^100."

I always held those news organizations skeptically in the back of my mind as Every Educated Person Ought To, but this is just...unbelievable.

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

#812

Post by colordrops » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

If you haven't noticed the media collusion you are both blind and dumb.

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

#813

Post by mentalpiracy » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

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…

Since we're evidently devolving to a reductionist game of "which is worse?", can I throw in a round? Choose one:

a) mishandling of classified information

b) insisting that as commander-in-chief, you will order the US military to commit war crimes

Which do you think more directly harms US interests abroad?

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

#814

Post by 4ad » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

api wrote: post #804

hiringmanager wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why single out reddit? I wonder the same about 4chan and hacker news.

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

#815

Post by blhack » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

amasad wrote: post #634

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…

There are really damaging things -- although nothing surprising and that's why I think nobody is talking about it. E.g. in one email HRC talks about how Qatar is funding ISIS, and in the next they're giving Bill Clinton a $1m check for his birthday. The wallstreet stuff would've definitely tilted the balance to Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Finally, the level of involvement with the press is far more than I could'…

I haven't seen anything that egregious from the NYT. Can you link to this email, please?

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

#816

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:27 PM UTC

fnovd wrote: post #257

jacquesm wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sources matter if all you do is to look at the information and it's source. But if you look at the information and you can find independent verification of rejection of the information then you can form a conclusion that is a lot stronger than just speculation based on info+source. Possible facts: Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) Assange has been extradited (status unknown at this po…

How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? If you're ignoring who presents the facts and who presents the verification, how do you determine whether or not the reporter of the verification is independent from the reporter of the fact? Sources matter. And there is no such thing as a "probably true possible fact". There are facts and there are allegations.

Multiple accounts, particularly ones which are 1) detailed and 2) generally support one another, are a good start. Even if you don't know who the individual reporters are.

As an example, the UNHCR follows a similar protocol when investigating reports of atrocities. The individual reporters, while not fully anonymous, frequently have no previous basis to assess credibility. If their stories generally correspond, you've got an indication of truth. If the stories differ on material points, there are problems.

The story of Susannah from the Book of Daniel (Bible or Torah) has an excellent early exemplar of this: the stories of two claimed witnesses differed materially in the description of a crucial tree, impeaching their credibility.

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

#817

Post by colordrops » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:28 PM UTC

mejari wrote: post #417

dleslie wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Wikileaks notified of an incoming set of documents dangerous to the DNC well before those Trump videos arose.

They did that repeatedly with nothing delivered, previously. All of a sudden they feel the need to actually release something.

Most of the stories of planned releases were either misdirection or outright lies by bloggers and other media sources looking to make Assange seem like the boy that cried wolf. If you look at Assange/Wikileaks' proposed release dates, they mostly are on schedule.

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

#818

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:29 PM UTC

camiller wrote: post #706

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,…

Sorry but wasn't the NYT shown to be colluding with the DNC to stack the deck against Sanders in the emails wikileaks published from the DNC hack? https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni...

No.

EDIT: for context, if you go read the actual emails, what you see are totally bog-standard comments of a PR team reacting to a story once it posted, and again when the NYT updated it, as the NYT (and other papers) often do.

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

#819

Post by pdx » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

spaceheeder wrote: post #719

r_smart wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 p…

Why don't you debate this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/politicos-chief-pol...

    Glenn Thrush, Politco's Chief Political Correspondent, decided to make it crystal clear in the 
    following email to Podesta back in April 2015 in which he admits that he has "become a hack."  
    The email below from Thrush was sent to get guidance related to an article he published the 
    very next day entitled "Hillary's Big-Money Dilemma."

=============

    Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u
 
    Please don't share or tell anyone I did this
   
    Tell me if I fucked up anything

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

#820

Post by slg » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

ghurtado wrote: post #698

slg wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

You are disagreeing with an argument I didn't make. The burden of proof is always on the accuser/state. That is what makes sex crimes so hard to prosecute. I never made any statement regarding that or suggested anything should change with sex crimes compared to other crimes.

I simply stated that the ideas someone can't be raped if they have previously had consensual sex with their rapist or that they must immediately end contact with their rapist are ignorant ideas.