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

131–140 of 227 posts

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

#131

Post by phaus »

ng12 wrote: post #128
phaus wrote: post #91

Earlier 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…

Honestly curious -- do you think there are outlets that meet that ideal? I used to think so but 2016 shook my faith in a lot of outlets I used to trust.

No. Alt-right tabloids like Breitbart are obviously significantly worse than mainstream media, but almost all journalism is trash. Every major network can point to really great work that some of their journalists have done. However, every day ALL of them post intentionally misleading stories designed to manipulate people that don't fact-check.

Frequently, they leave things out or use deceptive wording to change the meaning/context of events. Even when they cite facts, they often do so in ways that make telling what actually happened difficult.

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

#132

Post by jessaustin »

fixermark wrote: post #107
kakarot wrote: post #31

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.

Are we going by the British law regarding defamation, or the US law (where "Truth is an absolute defense")?

Do you know something you'd care to state publicly?

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

#133

Post by elif »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #114
elif wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to invent an answer to that question, they have provided their own explanation. Wikileaks believed the theft of the democratic party seat would be downplayed, refuted, or ignored by the 24-hour news-cycle. Unfortunately, it seems to have happened anyway. Also wikileaks has done multi-part staged releases on many occasions before and after, including the russia files and vault 7.

> Unfortunately, it seems to have happened anyway. If by "theft" you mean "the person who got the most votes got the nom," sure. That's not really news though. I mean, it is, but not for the reason you think it should be.

The DNC does not function as a popular vote, but with a complex system of campaigning, finance, and ultimately delegate voting.

The DNC seat was stolen through illegal redirection of funds, manipulation of public debates, and a deliberate media smear campaign which led to the DNC chairwoman's forced resignation.

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

#134

Post by phaus »

elif wrote: post #127
phaus wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect nation states to do what is in their best interest. Wikileaks helped Russia whether they wanted to or not. Russia's attempt to interfere with our democracy has led to one of the most toxic political climates in US history. The nation is divided and we keep shooting ourselves in the foot because we can't get along. When I mention NWO I'm simply referring to the fact that as the US has ruined its own reputatio…

If revealing the democratic party's misdeeds hurt the democratic party and helped russia, then we agree that there is an element of complicity for the messenger. Can we also likewise agree that the democratic party's misdeeds themselves hurt the democratic party and helped russia? If so, why is it reasonable to connect "wikileaks getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO, but not reasonable to connect "the DNC getting…

>If revealing the democratic party's misdeeds hurt the democratic party and helped russia, then we agree that there is an element of complicity for the messenger.

You're still oversimplifying it. I'm saying that they were trying to manipulate people with selective, perfectly timed releases designed to achieve a specific political goal while at the same time receiving information from and potentially coordinating with foreign intelligence agents and lying about it. You're trying to refer to that scenario as "I don't know why anyone's mad, all they did was tell us about a bad thing that happened."

I agree the information should have become public. I disagree that it needed to be intentionally weaponized in an active attempt to interfere with a sovereign nation's election by hostile actors.

>Can we also likewise agree that the democratic party's misdeeds themselves hurt the democratic party and helped russia?

I can agree wholeheartedly that any time anyone attempts to game one of our election systems that they are undermining the security of the US and helping the US' enemies. I don't think the US is even close to being a perfect country, but if it were successfully destabilized to the point where it could not be fixed it would be one of the worst possible outcomes for not only us, but almost every single country on the planet.

>If so, why is it reasonable to connect "wikileaks getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO, but not reasonable to connect "the DNC getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO?

Well, for one thing, Hillary is notably more hostile towards Putin than Trump. She's also infinitely more capable of coming up with adult solutions for dealing with them. Trump doesn't even believe all of the shit that we know for a fact Russia is doing to intentionally hurt us. His ignorance might not be legal treason but ethically its absolutely treasonous. And I say this as a person that didn't vote for Hillary Clinton or Trump. I voted for a fairly liberal libertarian (as far as libertarians go which is not very progressive) that I thought was terrible, but less terrible than either of them. If we had a decent moderate conservative that wasn't a religious nut or a decent progressive I would have voted for one of them, but unfortunately that was not the case.

Aside from that, if the DNC was doing something unethical (which IMO they were), its more than fair to call them out for it.

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

#135

Post by elif »

fixermark wrote: post #123
elif wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which bad behavior are you referring to?

He's continued to claim asylum to dodge a credible rape accusation rather than face justice. [EDIT: his claims of fear of extradition to the US are credible; there was a leaked charge against him in US courts. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/julian-assang... ] At this point, he's dodging Sweden's justice system because he can and because Ecuador allows him to. And all of this distracts from Wikileaks'…

At this point, sweden has no investigation or request to interview Assange.

He was never charged with a crime, but they were satisfied by their interview 2 years ago and dropped all investigations, as was requested by the alleged victim years prior.

Also the sealed indictment allowing for Assange to be extradicted has been leaked. It is very real.

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

#136

Post by elif »

phaus wrote: post #134
elif wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If revealing the democratic party's misdeeds hurt the democratic party and helped russia, then we agree that there is an element of complicity for the messenger. Can we also likewise agree that the democratic party's misdeeds themselves hurt the democratic party and helped russia? If so, why is it reasonable to connect "wikileaks getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO, but not reasonable to connect "the DNC getting…

>If revealing the democratic party's misdeeds hurt the democratic party and helped russia, then we agree that there is an element of complicity for the messenger. You're still oversimplifying it. I'm saying that they were trying to manipulate people with selective, perfectly timed releases designed to achieve a specific political goal while at the same time receiving information from and potentially coordinating with…

>I'm saying that they were trying to manipulate people with selective, perfectly timed releases designed to achieve a specific political goal while at the same time receiving information from and potentially coordinating with foreign intelligence agents and lying about it.

There is no evidence of this. it is pure narrative based upon what you perceive as motives.

> some hillary vs trump stuff, who you voted for

not relevant to this discussion at all...

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

#137

Post by fixermark »

darkpuma wrote: post #130
fixermark wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. They likely had an impact. The money spent by Russian intelligence to run propaganda via social media should likely be counted as at least as influential.

How much money did Russian intelligence spend on such ads on social media? I googled "how much money did russia spend on facebook ads" but the numbers I see in that result are surprisingly small, so I'm wondering if you have a better source.

It's not the quantity they spent; it's the efficacy of the micro-targeting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...

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

#138

Post by deiznof »

elif wrote: post #94
ucaetano wrote: post #4

It 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.

It is comically insane to clarify matters when lies are being spread about you?

This is what I'm wondering as well. Is Assange just supposed to roll over and not defend himself? It seems like no matter what he does people just mock him. There have been lots of confirmed fake stories about Wikileaks over the years, what is the "proper" way for him to act when trying to debunk them?

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

#139

Post by nomel »

lkdjjdjjjdskjd wrote: post #121

I don't get it - it seems to be just a list of common false claims about Assange (according to Wikileaks)? How is that "things you can't say"? Surely you can still say them? Or what - will Wikileaks send their hired guns to silence you? Also I think Assange is not in control of Wikileaks anymore.

My understanding is that defamation and slander laws vary wildly across the world. Many people are looking at this with a US-centric slant.

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

#140

Post by fixermark »

elif wrote: post #135
fixermark wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's continued to claim asylum to dodge a credible rape accusation rather than face justice. [EDIT: his claims of fear of extradition to the US are credible; there was a leaked charge against him in US courts. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/julian-assang... ] At this point, he's dodging Sweden's justice system because he can and because Ecuador allows him to. And all of this distracts from Wikileaks'…

At this point, sweden has no investigation or request to interview Assange. He was never charged with a crime, but they were satisfied by their interview 2 years ago and dropped all investigations, as was requested by the alleged victim years prior. Also the sealed indictment allowing for Assange to be extradicted has been leaked. It is very real.

Sweden has reserved the right to re-open the investigation; the investigation is no longer open because the only person of interest left for them to interact with is Assange, and since he's in asylum they can't. The closure of the investigation is procedural, not comment on his guilt or innocence.

I was unaware of the leaked US charges from November however; that's news for me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention (I've updated my original post). Given that, however, I don't believe it's credible to assume that even if he were extradited to the US, he wouldn't have a fair day in court. He's too famous to disappear. So my original contention that he's a stain on the organization due to the fact he's dodging justice because he can stands.

Post reply on HN