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

Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

emma.best

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 227 posts

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#41

Post by dreen »

davidwitt415 wrote: post #37

Please 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…

But why make it confidential? That is one thing I don't understand. Why didn't they just publish this list on their website and sent a link? Maybe it's just a stupid idea on someones part...

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#42

Post by r3bl »

nness wrote: post #18
mhkool wrote: post #2

I 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…

> Even WikiLeaks didn’t answer its tip line repeatedly. The media has failed.

Direct quote from the Panama Papers source[0], after which Wikileaks "slammed" the source for not releasing the full leak. That was such an obvious defamation attempt that Wikileaks disgusts me ever since.

That wasn't the only defamation attempt around Panama Papers that Wikileaks attempted. Check out this[1] investigative gem, in which they've used a secret technique called "scrolling to the bottom to see the donors". I worked at that organization at the time and specifically remember myself thinking "Fuck you Julian, we're supposed to be on the same side." Edited to add: Of course, Russian media picked up on that tweet immediately[2].

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/may/06/panama-papers-s...

[1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352

[2] https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#43

Post by jstanley »

dreen wrote: post #41
davidwitt415 wrote: post #37

Please 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…

But why make it confidential? That is one thing I don't understand. Why didn't they just publish this list on their website and sent a link? Maybe it's just a stupid idea on someones part...

If they published it on their own website do you think we'd be looking at it now?

I think that's just a ruse to get more publicity, and it has worked.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#44

Post by sigmar »

davidwitt415 wrote: post #37

Please 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…

>(ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy).

rofl. you don't think there are video cameras both inside and outside of the embassy?

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#45

Post by excalibur »

reaperducer wrote: post #24
marpstar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WikiLeaks has almost certainly been compromised by global intelligence agencies and is operating as a front.

Irony from the memo: It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is, or has ever been, an agent or officer of any intelligence service

Okay, but that's kind of overshadowed by the massive irony of Wikileaks asking that this memo be kept secret and it promptly leaking.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#46

Post by cjhopman »

smacktoward wrote: post #34
marpstar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 organ…

If wikileaks treated all documents handed to them equally, maybe that would be the case.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#47

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

mywittyname wrote: post #33
porphyrogene wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>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.

Alright... Help me understand how this does not reflect WaPo, CNN, NYT, and others in an identical way.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#49

Post by ucaetano »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #28
driverdan wrote: post #22

This is the original source: https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things-youre-not-allowed-to... After it was leaked WL released their edited version.

Among the bullets from the original version: > It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange stinks. > It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange does not use cutlery or does not wash his hands. > It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange lives, or has ever lived, in a basement, cupboard or under the stairs. What on Earth…?

Well, it mostly tells you about what Assange worries about his public image.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#50

Post by jstanley »

sigmar wrote: post #44
davidwitt415 wrote: post #37

Please 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…

>(ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). rofl. you don't think there are video cameras both inside and outside of the embassy?

Quite the opposite. It is not the presence of video cameras both inside and outside that is disputed, but the presence of footage of Manafort.
Post reply on HN