Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

newsweek.com

51–60 of 150 posts

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no - politics in democratic systems should transcend this immature behaviour. Meaning, at some point of heated debate, those with no feelings involved take a step back, and find a middleground solution, a compromise with which both sides can live. And usually that boring compromise is accepted by the majority of the people. The problem starts when the majority of the people are cut off from economic growth a…

>Actually no - politics in democratic systems should transcend this immature behaviour. This isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Any compromise needs a supermajority of citizens in support of a majority of elected officials. With the two party system, often compromising can lead to an election loss even if the majority of voters were in favor of the end bill.

Sigh. It's a representative democracy and a republic. The terms aren't incompatible.

Just because the dichotomy was James Madison's hobby horse and he scribbled it down in Federalist No. 10, doesn't mean that it is gospel. The US has been referred to as a representative democracy since its founding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#52

I didn't know why he was so hell-bent against the movie then noticed this side link in the article: http://www.newsweek.com/documentary-inside-julian-assange-wo... Assange comes off as a real machiavellian style asshole with vanity and manipulation seeming to him at least as important as his cause. Snowden and Assange often seem to get lumped together but there's a world of difference in personal character, and also…

I don't know why people still support Assange so clearly. It was interesting to me that people on /r/The_Donald love Assange so much. Before this documentary, I posted there criticising Wikileaks and it was totally hated on. I find that weird because the idea that Assange is unreliable and fake, was the kind of somewhat-counter-main-narrative idea that I thought people of T_D would appreciate. They seem to see him as…

It seem political when people criticize Assange political refuge to a embassy. There need to be some insight to show why it is not political. It also need to explain from a historical (ie scientifically) why the actions are not rational.

I personally have collected enough reason to be very skeptical against such criticism. The first Swedish prosecutor dropped the case. When it was restarted by a second prosecutor, several uninvolved lawyers looked into the case on behalf on news agencies and conclude that the case had zero chance of going anywhere. When compared to rape cases in Sweden that get dropped, get not-guilty in court, and the small number that get a guilty verdict, you either need to have physical evidence of violence/drugs where a medical expert use their experience to claim rape, a video recording, witnesses that strongly (and seems more common than not to fail here) to show that the victim was incapacitated when going to sleep, or a confession. In contrast to most cases all the details for Assange case has been leaked and it has shown none of those critical components for a successful case. In addition we get some more warning clocks ringing when the European arrest warrant made a record for the lowest number of potential year in prison. A second record was achieved by the the amount of money spent in regard to the number of potential year in prison.

It could be a unicorn, a one of the kind where all the stars align to a guilty verdict, but the case smells political. The rational behavior when the legal system turn political is to run and hide.

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#53
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people still support Assange so clearly. It was interesting to me that people on /r/The_Donald love Assange so much. Before this documentary, I posted there criticising Wikileaks and it was totally hated on. I find that weird because the idea that Assange is unreliable and fake, was the kind of somewhat-counter-main-narrative idea that I thought people of T_D would appreciate. They seem to see him as…

> I can't respect someone who talks about curing the world of ignorance, and having the courage to tell the truth, but then cowers for 7 years in a embassy because he's too afraid to stand up and tell the truth, whatever it was, about what happened. It was more about not wanting to rot in US prison, I think.

Except that a) the US weren't interested (ironically, they may be now) and b) he repeatedly refused to meet Swedish investigators at the embassy, where there was no chance of rendition whatsoever.

People were dropping out of Wikileaks 10 years ago because of Assange's behaviour. Seems like Poitras is just the latest in a long line of people who are attracted to the principles of Wikileaks, but turned off by the reality.

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#54
post #49
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've observed that Trump and his supporters live in a childishly simple world where anything and anyone who says "good" or supportive things is hailed and anyone who criticizes or questions Trump is derided and held in contempt, irrespective of any actual factual basis.

You realize that the other side is the same right?

Er... no they're not. Watch Bill Maher whinge about protests against him from other progressives sometimes. He'd love to live in a world where progressives behaved like that, he'd be a hero.

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#55
post #42

The other side: http://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-attorneys-blast-citizenfou... "To be clear: our objections are not about censorship. WikiLeaks remains an unwavering advocate for freedom of expression. This is about safety. It is about protecting journalistic sources. It is about personal and professional integrity, and honoring contractual obligations. Our second major concern about Risk is the way the focus of the…

> This is about safety. It is about protecting journalistic sources.

Shameless hypocrisy. They had few concerns about safety when they released classified information.

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#56
post #53
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't respect someone who talks about curing the world of ignorance, and having the courage to tell the truth, but then cowers for 7 years in a embassy because he's too afraid to stand up and tell the truth, whatever it was, about what happened. It was more about not wanting to rot in US prison, I think.

Except that a) the US weren't interested (ironically, they may be now) and b) he repeatedly refused to meet Swedish investigators at the embassy, where there was no chance of rendition whatsoever. People were dropping out of Wikileaks 10 years ago because of Assange's behaviour. Seems like Poitras is just the latest in a long line of people who are attracted to the principles of Wikileaks, but turned off by the reali…

he repeatedly refused to meet Swedish investigators at the embassy, where there was no chance of rendition whatsoever.

Sources? Because this is the exact opposite of what I read: that Swedish investigators had repeatedly refused to interview him there.

Edit: I googled and I'm still convinced I'm right: https://www.google.com/search?q=why+dont+swedish+police+inte...

Edit2: unless someone can show sources moomins answer I'll say it is wrong and dangerously wrong in that it spreads a lie.

I still can't understand why no-one has bother to either downvote it or provide sources for it.

I don't necessarily like Assange but lets not lie to create more trouble for him.

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#57
I'm looking forward to the predictable "objective" downvotes HN will give this reply. How do I know I will be downvoted? Because political insanity rules the "objective", "scientific", "rational" perspective. As you read that, I'm sure your mouse is hovering over the glorious down arrow, desperate to extract political vengeance upon these combination of words. If only we can punish the author of these insights, HN says to themselves, we can inversely incentivize the world we want!

With that stupid and unfortunately necessary preamble in position to assuage the average emotional junkie, Wikileaks was deeply supported by the intelligentsia when they posted materials that were against the Bush-era War on Terror narrative. Rightfully so. Those who understood economics knew the industrial production model of the world couldn't survive without perpetual nationalist pride/war. Therefore, the Cold War had to be abstracted into a unending series of unsolvable conflicts. Pointing this paradigm out is not effective, especially since George Orwell was the very first to point out such industrial/creative serfdom in his book "1984", written in 1948, one year after international banks dependent on industrial expansion concluded their war to ensure prior clients of steel would purchase it again during reconstruction/Marshall Plan. The "resistance class" of society was deeply familiar with that, and Wikileaks tapped into that post-1960s culture of fuck-the-man when it was convenient and harmless to have such a position under Bush II.

But they were just as critical of the "Civil Rights" princeling, known as President Barack Obama. This cost them tremendous social capital, primarily because of his involvement in allowing central banks to keep interest rates artificially low in the hopes of stimulating the global economy. Good intentions, but shit execution. Wikileaks struck against the Obama regime and caught deeply suspicious eyeballs for it... but pressed on anyways. (How dare anyone criticize the first black president of North America... CLEARLY you must be racist if you disagree with his policies regarding big banks)

If you want to understand why Wikileaks stands against smear tactis against Trump, then you need to understand why your political revenge fantasies is useless. Wikileaks is anti-globalism (and always has been) because that is the source of power for the structure Wikileaks stands against. Trump is anti-globalist for the bulk because the USD is losing its position as the reserve currency. Wikileaks was the first to seduce the authority sector that they could ensure their leaks had maximum ideological impact. The future involves variants of Wikileaks competing against one another for maximum security against a nationalist security apparatus that cannot organize itself competitively.

The ideal of borderless nations dominating the world where detailed in the 1800s. We stand here within that structure where nations can bypass SWIFT and forex by using BitCoin cartels. At some point, ideology and currency will deeply fuse together, and thus, censorship won't be about eliminating ideals, but about eliminating value and time. This will cause modern techniques of censorship to be deemed as oppressive, finally undoing the legacy influence of Baby Boomer power addiction.

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#58
post #11
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I checked DKIM records and they did pass. Many emails did not have DKIM headers, but I never found one that contained DKIM headers, and failed validation.

Hmm, interesting. I'm now downloading the archive and going to run through and check again. Edit: Huh, guess Wikileaks has a hard 40Mbit down limit for downloads, this might take a while. Edit 2: Not sure if this is due to time since leaks, and weirdness, but one such email I found was https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/41063 dkim.ValidationError: body hash mismatch (got xYeNHE1y7S7c90FEmj0Clvuu8UkskqNWL3Li…

[deleted]

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#59
Isn't it rational to focus on outcomes. For the average citizen who doesn't work for the government or has a vested interest there is no context in which they would not value more transparency, especially when the cost is borne almost exclusively by Assange, Snowden, Poitras and others. The constants attempts to belittle and discredit them without considering the overall outcomes seem motivated and desperate.

Shutting down conversation by smug references to conspiracy theories is not as easy to do now. On the contrary it's the people who hang on desperately to the 'safety' of fantasy narratives and demand Snowden level sacrifice or signed confessions from authorities who seem out of touch and suspect.

Illusions and delusions about fundamental principles and values lies in tatters. Its not as easy to trade in pretensions and present a holier than thou attitude while working the backroom. And for those interested its now possible to have a more informed perspective of our world. That's a huge contribution by wikileaks.

Re: Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

#60
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people still support Assange so clearly. It was interesting to me that people on /r/The_Donald love Assange so much. Before this documentary, I posted there criticising Wikileaks and it was totally hated on. I find that weird because the idea that Assange is unreliable and fake, was the kind of somewhat-counter-main-narrative idea that I thought people of T_D would appreciate. They seem to see him as…

It seem political when people criticize Assange political refuge to a embassy. There need to be some insight to show why it is not political. It also need to explain from a historical (ie scientifically) why the actions are not rational. I personally have collected enough reason to be very skeptical against such criticism. The first Swedish prosecutor dropped the case. When it was restarted by a second prosecutor, se…

It became a much bigger deal once he fled first Sweden, and then British jurisdiction. That set up it as a test of the powers of the legal systems of those countries.

If you allow someone to escape prosecution simply by raising the costs/creating inconvenience, you all but guarantee others to try to do the same, and/or to lose faith in the equality of justice.

Regarding the common conspiracy theories: always remember that he was arrested, then freed on bail, in both countries. If they had wanted to extradite him to Guantanamo, they would've done it long ago.

Post reply on HN