Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

Post by hackuser » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 4:07 AM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #38

skywhopper wrote: post #12

Wikileaks has released some important things, but they should be embarrassed that they thought the personal emails of Hillary's campaign staff saying sometimes silly things to each other was at all newsworthy. It was sensational, sure, but it revealed nothing important or even interesting. Anyone who spends a moment considering the question would expect campaign operatives to gripe about their opponents in over the t…

I'm not sure if this is the same group of emails you talked about, but at the very least they admitted to a conspiracy to try to incite a "revolution" within the Catholic Church using pseudo-Catholic lay organizations with morally progressive agendas. That doesn't seem like a small thing.

Post by tiles » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 4:08 AM UTC

throwaway7876 wrote: post #31

At times it feels that they should be called american-govmnt-leaks.org. Where are all the juicy leaks from Russian, Chinease, French, Mexican, Brazilian, Egyptian, or other nation states. Where are the leaks from mafia, drug cartels, or other criminal organizations. Records from financial institutions, law firms, drug companies. Records from catholic church and other religious organizations. There is so much corrupti…

Post by mcphage » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 4:09 AM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #50

forrestbrazeal wrote: post #4

"Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations. ...We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to.." So they prefer to be unwitting pawns? Transparency is great, freedom of information is great, but is there some point at which you have to step back and acknowledge that you're being used by a foreign power? Doesn't that undermin…

> So they prefer to be unwitting pawns? Yes, just as journalists often are when someone comes forward with a story or leaks information, etc. By not making the sort of editorial decisions that would slant the meaning of the leaked data, WL stays above that. Other journalists are free to dig deeper and write full-scale investigative stories based on the data.

Post by alphonsegaston » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 4:10 AM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #5

ccvannorman wrote: post #3

It seems pretty obvious that WikiLeaks has been compromised - is anyone buying this defense? And more importantly, who/what will replace WikiLeaks?

I feel like I'm out of the loop. When was wikileaks compromised? I've passively followed their work over the years, but I've tried to tune out most of the internet the past couple months.

Post by hackuser » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 4:10 AM UTC

_yt0l wrote: post #51

hackuser wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe strongly in transparency as a way to prevent corruption, but spreading misinformation doesn't stop corruption, it furthers it. It doesn't 'shine a light', it creates shadows where a brutal dictator can hide while he hurts others. Look up "useful idiots" to understand the role they played. It's too easy to cite principle such as "transparency" in order to ignore the difficult questions of responsibility and…

To be fair, they have a better track record than most media outlets. They don't trust the information at face value until, according to them at least, it has been verified. What that verification process is I have no idea, but so far it does appear to be working. I might just be out of the loop, though, so if that is the case what misinformation have they spread?