In that thread you quoted someone who basically said that secrecy is the antithesis of democracy, while now you are completely against an organisation which makes public information which shouldn't really be secret.
"Always suspect people and news reports that agree with your worldview."
Yeh sure, but I am willing, unlike it seems you, to give him and this very new company the benefit of good will.
I have not seen the "collateral murder" video, so maybe I should not comment on that, but it strikes me as strange that people would focus on the tile and use that against the entire company, what it does, and all else, never mind that it was a revelation of some sort and I suspect that the media has a great role to play in such strange behaviour.
Again we see the same happening with the Afghan files. Could, possibly, it may be, arguably. On these very thin foundations an argument so powerful is made. No, it doesn't matter that the government was careless, no its him, him..
I think it is both. I am not in any way angry at the intelligence agencies, nor secrets, nor at the Afghan war. What I do dislike and would like is a world which is not guided by selfish interests, big corporations with too much power, big individuals with too much power, I suppose it very shorty can be summed up as things which are not right or just by the standard of the reasonable man.
For example, I would very much like the minutes of the meetings between Google and Verizon to be leaked in their entirety because they have no right to conduct a conversation of such grave importance in secret and the fact that they have chosen to do so makes me highly suspicious and makes me think that they are conspiring against the public to their own benefit.
A while back here in the UK there was a super injunction whereby no one could report about a specific statement in Parliament! Wkileaks leaked the statement. The injunction was lifted I would think despite the leak due to much pressure, but in another situations it might have not been lifted while it was right that it should be.
These are only examples which indicate quite well the combination between the two things you mentioned. I believe that the person who was able to build such a formidable machine is a reasonable man in the same way that I would consider myself a reasonable man. Thus I would not think - and the fact that he has not published some info in the Afghan files - that he would expose a secret that a reasonable man would think not right to expose.
Reasonable people can of course disagree. An example of anarchism might be the making public of Google's algorithm. Would a reasonable person think this to be desirable? Well Google thrives on secrecy. It is because of this secrecy that they have the liberty to state things like "oh we are impressed that our search results are not getting worse". It is because of this secrecy that innovation in the area of search is stifled. They had for example the decency to tell us only recently just how much it takes from the adverts places on our sites. Why should such a thing be secret? You might say well that's the free market, but is there really a choice here?
As for the algorithm, the argument often is that people would play the system, so lets just keep it as it is and fatten our pockets rather than try and make things better.
People are playing the system anyway. But that argument is like saying lets not tell people what the law is because they then would be able to subvert it. No one would suggest not telling people what the law is. That is a Kafkaesque world and the way google operates is very much Kafkesque.
So if people play the system, is google just going to sit back and relax and have a cup of tea, or is it actually going to fight back and keep order? Might it perhaps be that this secrecy suits them well, suits their pockets, and screws everyone else?
That is just an example. Perhaps of no relevance as I said he does not leak everything. He seems to be a reasonable man. Everything that has happened until now seems very reasonable to me. Yes perhaps he did made some mistakes, but these are 90,000 documents! and it is not all entirely his fault, a one man, as opposed to the entire machinery of state who has the decency to refuse considering whether the life of people might be put in danger.
I do not however blindly favour it. If so it happens that he does something which would be considered unreasonable, then there might be an argument, but he hasn't.
Now, what problem is he exactly feeding? The government is keeping secrets from us for the benefit of the politicians and the wealthy, the wealthy are keeping secrets from us and conspiring against the public to further increase their wealth. He is trying to expose things which have no reason to be secret. What problem is he exactly feeding? That perhaps there will be an arm's race, that we will see evolution in a fast motion in regards to keeping secrets? That's very good. The harder it is to keep secrets which need not be kept secret, the better for us all.
So, at the very least, give the man and the company the benefit of the doubt. He is not an idiot, I doubt he is evil, I doubt he is being an asshole. He is standing up to the wealthy and fighting for the general public not in some Hollywood film, but in our real life and he seems to be doing a good job.
So at the very least, support some neocon guy who favours torture and illegal wars and thinks he is above the law when wikileaks has actually done something which is deserving of being judged criminal.