Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 182 posts

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#121

Post by generic_user »

xnull2guest wrote: post #111
generic_user wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a very serious intrusion that was denounced by the by American Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz and others. The front organisations are real and the intent of starting a 'Catholic Spring' was descussed by Podesta and other high ranking DNC officials.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6293 It's pretty incredible how casually members of the US government and party officials invoke the concept of galvanizing revolutionary movements. There's a concept within the US government that "it's better to convince than to conquer" but there's been a growing awareness and resistance to the emotional abuse that comes from the exhausting onslaught of ideological infil…

The US has been involved in 'Color Revolutions' for a long time. There is evidence that Ukrainian revolution was in part aided by US and EU.

George Soros Is also a big player in financing NGOs that work to establish phony social movements. Both Hillary and the DNC are connected to Soros Open Society Foundations. Soros is also funding BLM and other groups that are active in the protests/riots going on.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#122

Post by gozur88 »

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…

Those emails were quite a bit more serious than just political sausage-making. For one thing, they contained evidence of blatantly illegal behavior, i.e. the coordination of the campaign and "independent" groups.

This is particularly noteworthy because of the hypocrisy involved. Clinton has put a lot of effort into vilifying Citizens United - she was calling for more restrictive campaign laws while at the same time breaking the ones that pass constitutional muster.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#123

Post by mc32 »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #118
mc32 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That NPR bit was to associate Trump's rise as a consequence of the alt-right and their (racist) view of America. It's not that they pulled punches, it's that they want to alarm non alt-rights to make it look like they are taking over the Republican party. If NRP were on the right, they'd get something along the lines of black-power revolution types up there and let them go off and make it look like all Dems are like…

I understand that this was their intent, but this in no way seemed to me be the effect (not to mention that this strategy has already proven entirely incapable of checking the rise of Trump). The strategy of the alt-right is to couch Neo-Nazi ideology with just enough politeness and intellectual poise as to entice "ordinary people" into their ranks, further normalizing their cause. If you're well-mannered accountant…

I dunno, I think McEvers did alright. Except for people who would already identify with Spencer, I don't think anyone would think he was normal in anyway. She let him hang himself well.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#124

Post by alphonsegaston »

locusm wrote: post #65
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…

Have we seen a single shred of evidence of Russian involvement? Military types with a chest of medals saying so on CNN doesn't count btw.

Copying and pasting from down-thread - a Putin apparatchik was gloating to the Guardian that they helped sway the election the day after the results came in (ctrl+f "wikileaks":

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-applau...

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#125

Post by mehwoot »

admax88q wrote: post #29
forrestbrazeal wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that WikiLeaks' guiding philosophy as espoused in this article seems almost willfully naive.

What would you propose they do? Not leak documents based upon who the source is? If the documents are authentic, why does it matter who the source was? If A leaks documents on B revealing corruption about B, just because A's motives may not be pure, doesn't make B any less corrupt.

What would you propose they do? Not leak documents based upon who the source is?

Actually as far as I remember, this has always been part of their method of operation from the beginning, and they explicitly state this: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784873305463459841.

They are more than just someone who releases whatever is given to them- they attempt to vet the information and publicise it as well. Which are functions that probably should be done, but it's very hard to appear impartial when you do that...

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#126

Post by rdtsc »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #105
rdtsc wrote: post #95

I think out of all the "news" media so far Wikileaks is probably the most trustworthy. I've seen people claim they altered the emails or Russians wrote the emails, I think they'd have to point to specific instances for me to see it. I don't remember a single instance of them altering an email. I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it. How do we know these emails are interesting and us…

> I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it. The criticisms were generally of a different sort: editorializing in their selection of leaks. "selective omission", if you will. They have information about Trump but chose not to release it. According to Breitbart (so you know it's not from a "liberal media" source): http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/27/wikileaks-info-dona... > “We do…

> I feel like it would have been helpful for the people to know what they had on Trump.

I agree! I wish they did if they had it.

> Seems oddly opaque and politically motivated.

But what was shown was still factual and I'll take what I can get.

CNN, NBC, FOX, CBS, NYT and other mass media did a pretty good job at digging into Trump. With billions of dollar media apparatus, it is not that too upsetting Wikileaks didn't cover Trump as well. Others did a pretty good job there it seems.

> But when you see the pattern of leaks and omissions,

But what is better? CNN? Facebook friends? I don't have a lot of trustworthy sources around.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#127

Post by grandalf »

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #117
grandalf wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is one example. In other cases, such as the Syria files, known-to-have-existed emails that involved Russia mysteriously weren't leaked and many people have speculated that stemmed from a pro-Russia bias. I thought of this, but certainly there would have been someone CC'ed on one of those emails who would have leaked it to prove WL was sitting on relevant emails. This didn't happen.

Mind explaining the logic?

All they'd need to do is leak a single email, or even a snippet of a single email that was in the relevant date range but not released, and assert that WL had suppressed it.

FWIW we also saw HRC and her cronies claiming that the recently released emails were doctored. They made this claim straight-faced and it was cryptographically proven to be completely false.

So claims about WL's motivations and actions have thus far not stood up to scrutiny, and our officials have thus far been proven to be dishonest.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#128

Post by rdtsc »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #43
crystaln wrote: post #11

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wikileaks released information the timing of which was clearly meant to influence the US elections in a very particular way. Secondly, Assange issued statements clearly indicating his intentions to harm Clinton, not promote transparency. Why would the NYT publish this obvious garbage without counterpoint?

We're living in strange days, and it's only gonna get weirder. NPR aired a pull your punches interview with a white supremacist today, the New York Times is publishing doublespeak missives from what increasingly appears to be either the useful idiots or willing collaborators of Russian intelligence services. It's like Trump malware has turned the mainstream media into a spam-serving botnet for a league of fascists.

> malware has turned the mainstream media into a spam-serving botnet for a league of fascists.

Because they published an article about Wikileaks, they are now spreading fascism? You really believe that?

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#129

Post by rdtsc »

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…

They did release stuff from other countries. I hope they release more.

I'd imagine counter-balancing a billion dollar new conglomerate coverage of CNN, NBC, CBS and others wasn't that bad with just some emails. So wish they'd do more Eastern Europe (I am from there originally). If they had Trump material, I wish they'd release that as well.

I think I might donate to them, maybe they are understaffed and need more resources. So far I did find information there rather useful and helpful. Surprisingly more so than what I found form the traditional mass media.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#130

Post by akytt »

rdtsc wrote: post #95

I think out of all the "news" media so far Wikileaks is probably the most trustworthy. I've seen people claim they altered the emails or Russians wrote the emails, I think they'd have to point to specific instances for me to see it. I don't remember a single instance of them altering an email. I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it. How do we know these emails are interesting and us…

The e-mails don't have to be altered. Russians just have to make sure they get the data, filter out stuff they don't like leaving neutral and desired content and the publish the data in the right time accompanied by a specific media coverage so it gets noticed. This is information warfare. A statement that a body specifically not subject to any self-regulation mechanisms and unknown data sources (that has hurt people before, remember the Turkish leaks) is somehow more trustworthy than media, that has ages of ethical and regulatory history? Of course you have to think of what you were told, of course you need to balance your sources with al jazeera, bbc etc. But Wikileaks fits too snugly into both russian agenda and ideology (everybody is lying and our blatant fabrications ate therefore as much truth as anything) to ignore.
Post reply on HN