if you ever needed any more evidence that hn comments are probably full of people paid to say things...
Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
101–110 of 227 posts
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#102Earlier 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.
> which seemed to heavily favor a candidate
And that's surprising how, exactly? Guess what, 4chan /pol/ supported the exact same candidate, rare pepes and all, purely "for the lulz". Would you expect Assange to behave any differently?
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Oh, the bubble is real. Anyone not annoyingly vegan, anti-car, urban yimby-yuppie who still rents and making at least 300k making socially regressive technology, badly, with the newest popular framework is going to have to make sure to not only be relevant, but tickle the egos of the great majority while making their soon to be buried point.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#104It 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.
> insanity, illusion of grandeur and narcissism they did change the outcome of a US election, and probably the course of world history, which is more than all of the anti-trump media combined, so that is a pretty big accomplishment ...
They did it for teh lulz. Fits just right with Assange's narcissism.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#105It 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 more likely that the organization realized just how much influence they had, and wanted to be a force in global politics rather than just a dumping ground for data.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#106Every time they say "It is false and defamatory", it sounds like "It is true". Also, has anyone ever seen a prominent organization go to such lengths to protect an executive from accusations?
All the time. Usually by doing things that Wikileaks would eventually out.
... which is one of the reasons it's so sad to see the org falling into the trap as well, instead of recognizing the mission exceeds the man and cutting ties with this albatross.
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#107It 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.
Are we going by the British law regarding defamation, or the US law (where "Truth is an absolute defense")?
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
isn't the role of every media organization to affect the outcome of elections, by revealing true facts to the public? democracy dies in the dark you know.
There's a difference between objectively revealing all relevant, true facts at your disposal and selectively releasing true facts that support your agenda or actively harm your opponent, at very specific times when its most advantageous for you to do it. There's also a difference between having legitimate complaints about the United States government and actively working with Russian Intelligence to destabilize weste…
>If Wikileaks had their way I don't think you'd like the NWO that Putin and China would build for us.
He told us factually about a progressive candidate being illegally silenced by the democratic establishment, and it has been transformed into a quasi-russo quasi-chino NWO conspiracy?
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#109[deleted]
Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between objectively revealing all relevant, true facts at your disposal and selectively releasing true facts that support your agenda or actively harm your opponent, at very specific times when its most advantageous for you to do it. There's also a difference between having legitimate complaints about the United States government and actively working with Russian Intelligence to destabilize weste…
>If Wikileaks had their way I don't think you'd like the NWO that Putin and China would build for us. He told us factually about a progressive candidate being illegally silenced by the democratic establishment, and it has been transformed into a quasi-russo quasi-chino NWO conspiracy?
No one has argued that Wikileaks has never done anything right.
You're disingenuously oversimplifying the situation to imply that my position is ridiculous. When your ridiculous position is simply that "Wikileaks did a thing that I liked so that means they never did anything wrong and anyone that thinks its possible is just paranoid". Instead of being dismissive and condescending why not try to have a conversation?