Coinbase blocks WikiLeaks Shop

Why yes - democracy in the idealistic sense and anarchism in the free sense are not so dissimilar. Such a pity about the small reality of human behavior!

This is why we need decentralized exchanges... It was only a matter of time before Coinbase started acting like traditional payment processors / PayPal...

You also make another interesting point, even if it wasn't your intent. Mueller's indictment of hackers was in a legal system that would throw out the indictment if it were not logically and legally sound. The followup to that is, why wasn't there a presentation of the actual data that formed the conclusions of the IC the in the other cases that you mention? If you look at them, carefully, they have also been discredited since their presentations. The conclusions should be: 1) people are people with their own agendas and designs, and 2) appealing to authority isn't critical or independent thinking.

> Maybe it implicates them- if they knew the info was from Russia, and knew that Russia was trying to damage Clinton, and coordinated with the GRU to maximally damage her. Both things could be true.

Going by my earlier comment - I would coordinate with the Satan to release true information, the source of the information does not necessarily contaminate its truthiness. Publishing true information, as a hypothetical whistleblower organization, is my hypothetical raison d'etre.

This only ever becomes suspect if I am selectively publishing, or if I am aware that I am selectively publishing.

In this case there needs to be evidence of either. Conversations with biased parties are not evidence unless they clearly state that the selective publishing is known.

It's also extremely important to realize what exactly the voters learned from the emails. CAP President Neera Tanden, and a prominent figure in HRC's campaign, expressed sharp criticisms for her favored candidate's judgment. DNC Chair Donna Brazille emailed privately about how the statistical job growth under President Obama was essentially a "technical" win, but had very little impact on people's lives. She also went on to leak debate questions to her favored candidate, exposing one of hundreds of different instances of a party-wide effort to sabotage the primary process.

Contrast this with the RNC primary. Virtually the entire party leadership loathed then-candidate Trump. As opposed to rallying around him, they actively rallied against him. In October there were discussions of replacing him on the ticket. Even at the convention, Ted Cruz reportedly went off-script and asked attendees to vote their conscience, as opposed to voting for candidate Trump. The divisions in the GOP were laid bare for the world to see. The divisions in the DNC stayed hidden from voters. Voters only learned much after the election that Donna Brazille contemplated replacing Hillary Clinton with another candidate after she fainted on 9/11, an event that ironically followed weeks of mainstream media outrage against "right wing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton's Health", which also included a pickle-jar opening gag on a late night talk show.

What truths would Wikileaks have exposed about the RNC that weren't already publicly known? Is this an empty box containing any convenient allegation?

One of the USA's major political parties sabotaged the primary process, engaged in debate cheating, media manipulation and bird-dogging, all for a candidate whom many of the party's own leadership found wanting in terms of judgment. After all this - the outrage seems fixated on the messenger, Wikileaks, as if their alleged selective leaking somehow absolves the Democrats of these monumentally disgusting actions.

If you look at the election from the perspective of damage done to candidates - the sheer volume of substantiated negative press received by candidate Trump makes it really difficult to argue that voters could have somehow heard something else from the RNC's emails that would changed their minds about him.

That doesn't apply here.

The content here is raw emails from prominent Democrats discussing things like cheating in debates to favor Hillary Clinton, telling each other about how Hillary Clinton has really bad judgment, and an orchestrated campaign with friends in the media to discredit her primary challenger.

There can't really be any "bias" in this kind of primary source information. What would you argue here? That candidate Sanders wanted this to happen? We already know from Donna Brazille's book that this is all true, and there is no other side of this story.

Would you argue that folks like Neera Tanden were emailing wisecracks about Hillary Clinton's poor judgment (while publicly saying the opposite), is somehow mischaracterized? Contrast this with how the RNC treated their frontrunner - they publicly criticized him at every opportunity, and nobody rigged the RNC primary to favor candidate Trump - in fact, they did the complete opposite rather publicly, all but endorsing his opponent.

If equivalent information was in the RNC's emails, it was not brand new information to the public, because they were saying those things in public about their candidate, while the DNC did it in secret.