It started out well but some of the things on there were a little petty. Surprised I didn't see a statement mentioning it was false and defamatory to claim that Assange has a small penis.
Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
31–40 of 227 posts
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#32I have always love wikileaks for what they do. It is very sad to see that there is so much wrong information and it makes me believe that there is indeed a smear campaign against Julian Assange and wilileaks.
Should not people have freedom of speech?
I don't have an opinion on the idea of a smear campaign one way or the other, but just because people have the right to say whatever they feel does not mean that there isn't some organized effort to coordinate those individuals' speech.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
WikiLeaks has almost certainly been compromised by global intelligence agencies and is operating as a front.
> almost certainly What are you criteria for near certainty and what evidence-supported claims are there that satisfy those criteria?
If there were solid evidence of this fact, the statement wouldn't need a qualifier.
Their behavior is consistent with what you'd expect from an intelligence agency. Such as well-timed releases during the 2016 US Presidential Election which seemed to heavily favor a candidate with strong ties to a foreign government well known for their intelligence capabilities.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#34It is sad to see how low WikiLeaks has fallen, and makes me think more and more that there has never been much of WL beyond Assange himself. It has reached comical levels of insanity, illusion of grandeur and narcissism.
WikiLeaks has almost certainly been compromised by global intelligence agencies and is operating as a front.
It's not clear to me that intelligence agencies would have ever needed to compromise WikiLeaks-the-organization. WikiLeaks' whole methodology was to publish, unedited and unredacted, any documents anyone handed them. Any intelligence agency that wanted a clean way to get some illicitly-obtained documents out into public view could therefore do so just by handing them to WikiLeaks, without needing to subvert the organization in any way. WikiLeaks made a perfect front just by working the way it was designed to work.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this something that Assange should be releasing personally, anyway? Feels a little weird for him to have his org do his dirty work. An org that claims such objectivity.
Multiple news agencies have reported that the Ecuadorians cut off his Internet access in the spring of 2018, after unspecified or wildly speculated-upon "misbehavior" by Assange.
And probably more relevant, after the election that removed Rafael Correa as the president.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#36I have always love wikileaks for what they do. It is very sad to see that there is so much wrong information and it makes me believe that there is indeed a smear campaign against Julian Assange and wilileaks.
If anything, can't but help feel that WikiLeaks informed how the ICIJ handled the leaked 11.5 million leaked documents that comprised the 'Panama Papers.' The involvement of multiple journalists, across different organisations, really adds authenticity that the information was handled objectively and fairly. There's been very little criticism of that fact, at least when compared to WikiLeak's handling of other materi…
Looking at how the Sueddeutsche Zeitung handled the Panama Papers, this is how reputable, responsible and professional journalists should deal with a massive leak.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#37Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy).
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua...
Clearly, we are being played by the media and whoever is putting them up to it, with the understanding that most people hear a headline and think they now 'know' the story. Another great example is teh high-tech sonic attack on Guantanamo US personnel which is now being revealed as.. crickets!
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> almost certainly What are you criteria for near certainty and what evidence-supported claims are there that satisfy those criteria?
I don't see why you are downvoted. It's a very valid question. Wild claims made without evidence are essentially conspiracy theories. Surely HN has higher standards than that?
> I don't see why you are downvoted
There are views which are verboten on HN: supporting AMP, supporting ad-based business models, telling people not to use free services if they don't like them, and criticizing certain public figures. You might voice them, but prepare for the downvotes.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#39Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Clearly, we are being…
As I understand it, the recordings are just being shown as crickets. They are not disputing that the medical issues were not real, just that this piece of evidence was crickets. That doesn't mean they are saying that the attack was crickets.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#40The ridiculous hypocrisy of the "official" wikileaks organization sending out a document labeled "CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION."
I thought the American people didn't care about transparency, suddenly using the crutch they rejected to beat the people who gave it to them gives them a sense of satisfaction they may be left blissfully ignorant. Not just assange, but snowden, and manning.