21–30 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you'd be fine with Wikileaks being shut down at this point?
Wikileaks only coin was trust, they've lost that as far as I can see therefore their time of usefulness is more or less over. I really don't see how they will regain it at this point, sometimes a fresh start is better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How important are they really? If they aren't trustworthy -- and I think there's a great case to be made for the fact that Assange is not -- what can wikileaks do that some other website can't?
In what way are the wikileaks releases -- Not Assange, not their Twitter, but wikileaks releases -- not trustworthy? Are any of the releases discredited?
Part of it may be because some of Wikileaks high value contacts are now in places where they are vulnerable (which adds weight to the call to Pardon Snowden, it would make it much easier for WL to release dirt on Putin and company, assuming they have any).
Assange set himself up to be easily corralled, not the smartest thing but he's not the first (and won't be the last) person that makes it into the limelight and ends up tripping up because of it.
Releases themselves can be independently verified, what data that is there that ends up labeled factually accurate is a great gift and I'm very happy they did what they did, however we will need more or other organizations like WL if we're to get the whole picture.
That would help in another way, you could immediately check for any modifications or selective withholding of information from the various sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikileaks only coin was trust, they've lost that as far as I can see therefore their time of usefulness is more or less over. I really don't see how they will regain it at this point, sometimes a fresh start is better.
None of their releases have been discredited. Focusing on personalities is a mistake.
Focusing on personalities is a mistake when it comes to mere technical ability, but when it becomes a political question I think it is a valid concern.
At a minimum I'd like to see another outlet next to WL.
Fyi at this point there is speculation that something has happened with WikiLeaks, including Assange, who has not been seen for a week now since the early morning events at the Embassy (when his Internet was cut). Their subreddit has had their share of panic threads. Take this with a grain a salt, and I won't link to 4chan where this was first pointed out, but the last two days of tweets have also included typos/ mis…
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/94081465/julian-assange-w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of their releases have been discredited. Focusing on personalities is a mistake.
You are missing the possibility of selective withholding of information and possible changes of the information leaked to suit a political end. Focusing on personalities is a mistake when it comes to mere technical ability, but when it becomes a political question I think it is a valid concern. At a minimum I'd like to see another outlet next to WL.
And no one has shown any change to released information. Not once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikileaks only coin was trust, they've lost that as far as I can see therefore their time of usefulness is more or less over. I really don't see how they will regain it at this point, sometimes a fresh start is better.
None of their releases have been discredited. Focusing on personalities is a mistake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdog...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way are the wikileaks releases -- Not Assange, not their Twitter, but wikileaks releases -- not trustworthy? Are any of the releases discredited?
They may not be discredited but you have to wonder what has been purposefully left out. Wikileaks as an institution depends very much on being perceived as a-political, simply a bunch of techies that will get your leaked documents out. Over the years they have shifted further and further to becoming a politically actve entity. Part of that is in response to the inevitable backlash to some of the released but that bac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How important are they really? If they aren't trustworthy -- and I think there's a great case to be made for the fact that Assange is not -- what can wikileaks do that some other website can't?
> what can wikileaks do that some other website can't? No fear of going against the establishment. How many websites that you know of reveal such classified information and get wide press coverage for the same? I don't fully understand Assange's political motivations, but the world is definitely better off with Wikileaks than without.
It's not a very nice world to imagine. The people who get hurt are ordinary citizens whose info winds up in these giant data drops.
Wikileaks is apparently on a mission to destroy whatever credibility they had left. They seem to be taking a leaf out of the IS playbook here, any random attack that is moderately successful gets claimed as one of theirs. It isn't a week since they were extremely economical with the truth regarding Assange's internet access ('state actor cut off their internet' -> 'Ecuador has pulled the plug on Assange's laptop'). T…
> What will replace wikileaks?
Nothing, at least anytime soon. If wikileaks sticks to it's mission of opening Governments without the negative associations, as you said, that would suffice.