Live data from Hacker News

Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

emma.best

211–220 of 227 posts

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

#211
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

look at whats popular now vs what was when posted, and all the throwaways. im curious- do you think its rare that there are paid posters on hn? i think its fairly common for pr firms on behalf of tech companies, and less so but still very probable for political special interests

do you think it's rare that there are paid posters on hn? It depends on definitions. There are certainly URL submissions done by PR firms, but I think most of these are low quality and flagged. There are all sorts of small businesses that do self-promotion through HN, with varying degrees of success. There are certainly others who tend to upvote the companies that pay them, but I think this is usually because they li…

> It's certainly possible, but I'd love to see stronger evidence for it.

If you indeed want strong evidence for it, I think there is a way to get it.

1. Read up on the movement to free Tibet, the current geopolitical situation in the Ukraine, and... hm, perhaps Wikileaks or Assange? Not sure on the last one, there may be a better topic. Bonus points for researching the boycott of Israeli products.

2. Gather up the most well-researched articles from well-respected scholars on each topic. Make a note of the most novel points-- things that, say, a layperson would be unlikely to know. On the other hand, make sure your novel points are based purely in fact and not speculation or opinion of the author.

You'll want equal number of novel points from each category.

Once you have a decent collection of novel "conversation starters," then for each post you make on HN randomly choose of one of your novel points. If it can be used sensibly as an analogy or reference in your post, make it. If not, don't.

As your nation-state bait starts to make its way into your posts, read the responses and measure what you get against what you got before you started the process. Ignore responses that merely point out that you chose a hot-button analogy, but count any that attempt to refute your novel points.

If you encounter regular refutations on a single one of your categories, that's something to keep an eye on. If you notice regular refutations of two of the categories, that's stronger confirmation that something is going on. And if you get refutations on all three topics, then congratulations! You've probably baited three nation-state disinformation campaigns into spending time and effort on your HN posts.

There is of course a shortcut. If, upon reading this, you feel that the risks of doing this clearly outweigh any potential benefits, then congratulations! Our social media tools are probably so easily and cheaply manipulated by state actors that we may as well go ahead and assume there are paid state actors posting on HN.

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

#212
post #39

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…

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.

The rational heads are saying there was no attack.

That was a fiction to fit the narative anti-normalisation proponents such a Rubio wanted to push.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/the-real-story-behin...

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

#213
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any organization dedicated to publishing leaks can be used by any state to push its political propaganda. But that's the price of free speech. In a society that eshrines the right to free speech, unless you're sworn to secrecy, you're allowed to publish leaks, no matter what your motives, and no matter who those leaks help.

You might argue it was for the greater good but Wikileaks was a tool nonetheless.

True, in the same way Facebook and Twitter are tools.

The argument against them is the same, does the benefit outweight the damage that can also be done?

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

#214
Funny to see how people plug their ears and cover their eyes at the podesta emails but cry for trump stuff that only exists in the minds of alt-left.

Afraid to look at reality, but has an weird, unhealthy infatuation with things that are clearly false and still haven't been proven.

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

#215
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you think it's rare that there are paid posters on hn? It depends on definitions. There are certainly URL submissions done by PR firms, but I think most of these are low quality and flagged. There are all sorts of small businesses that do self-promotion through HN, with varying degrees of success. There are certainly others who tend to upvote the companies that pay them, but I think this is usually because they li…

> It's certainly possible, but I'd love to see stronger evidence for it. If you indeed want strong evidence for it, I think there is a way to get it. 1. Read up on the movement to free Tibet, the current geopolitical situation in the Ukraine, and... hm, perhaps Wikileaks or Assange? Not sure on the last one, there may be a better topic. Bonus points for researching the boycott of Israeli products. 2. Gather up the mo…

I feel like there is an important distinction between "paid actors" and "true believers", but I don't think your model distinguishes these. Do you think the approach you propose can separate these, or do you think this distinction just doesn't matter?

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

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The DNC does not function as a popular vote You could have stopped there. The major disconnect between public perception of the political parties and actual party function is the party ultimately nominates who it chooses. Votes are cast because it's assumed Americans wouldn't support a party that simply nominated a candidate via authoritarianism or autocracy, not because either party believes in the wisdom of the m…

> Votes are cast because it's assumed Americans wouldn't support a party that simply nominated a candidate via authoritarianism or autocracy No, the modern candidate selection process in each of the major parties isn't an abstract response to theoretical concerns about what Americans would respond to, but a concrete response to real issues identified through previous nomination processes. > If anything, "wisdom of th…

Haha the best-laid plans...

Very few people would have considered Trump "the institutional candidate", although I guess the GOP conspiracy has maybe fooled us. Even fewer people would have considered all the DNC superdelegate crap to have been a broad geographic democratic competitive scenario.

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

#217
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first two words of your link are "If true," and the report it is using four anonymous sources... Keep in mind, the company contracted to produce this report, Fusion GPS, was also paid to produce "evidence" that north korea was responsible for hacking Sony in 2014... so you may want to spot-check your evidence.

It's international espionage. Four anonymous sources is all we're ever going to get. And the consensus appears to generally be that NK did hack Sony in 2014, so I don't know what you're on about. There are suggestions of alternatives but nothing concrete or in accordance with the known evidence.

Every detail of the consensus must be policed mercilessly, else the whole edifice crumble...

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been profiled by judges? Cops don't get to decide Assange's fate if he's tried in United States court of law. And that trial would have international eyes on it, not a lot of opportunity for shenanigans without lasting repurcussions.

One may look no further than the treatment of Assange's own source for the Afghanistan war logs for clear evidence that "international eyes" do not stop attempts at pre-trial punishment. The lone member of Obama's State Department who spoke out against that treatment-- P.J. Crowley-- had to resign the next day for doing so. If you didn't know about any of those events I'd suggest reading up on them before commenting…

... and one may look no further than the fact that Chelsea Manning is free now to see that being in the public eye has a significant effect on the outcome, because were she not in the public eye, she'd very much still be in jail for espionage. On account of the espionage, which leaked documents adding fuel to the fire-piles that kindled into the political destabilization of several nations in the Middle East and North Africa and the deaths of thousands of people in civil wars, beginning with Libya.

She got off very easy for the deaths she (unintentionally) facilitated by deciding her conscience spoke more loudly than the expertise of thousands of State Department operatives trained to deal with delicate international political issues.

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

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean he targeted powerful people and put a lot of information out that they didn’t want exposed. I think to say he’ll get a fair day in court is something that’s easier to say when you aren’t the one with cannons pointed at you. I’ve been profiled by cops various times in my life, and the overwhelming feeling was that if I didn’t do what they wanted (things which I had no legal obligation to do) that they could hav…

Have you been profiled by judges? Cops don't get to decide Assange's fate if he's tried in United States court of law. And that trial would have international eyes on it, not a lot of opportunity for shenanigans without lasting repurcussions.

Not that I’m aware of, however as I said in my last post - I usually take the high road and do what it takes to get the heat off. I usually don’t sit there and start arguing with the cop and antagonize him. Even if I’m in the right. I don’t bend over and follow orders, I resist enough to make the experience unpleasant for them as it is for me, but I have other things in life to do than fight the injustice.

Assange did the opposite. He came out guns blazing. When you do that, the court system often will find a way to bone you. And that doesn’t usually result in repercussions because the system can say “well maybe we were a little wrong but he wasn’t helping his case!”. And tragically that’s often enough for the external watchers to let it go.

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

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). So, you've reviewed all the security camera footage inside and outside the embassy? Or, are you mistaking “no security camera footage has been leaked to the public showing this” for “none of the security camera footage shot shows this”?

Presumably the logic is more "nobody has published any footage, so there probably isn't any". I have footage of Trump and Hillary leaving a Motel together. Do you believe me? Why not - have you watched all the footage? Didn't think so...

You haven't won a Pulitzer.

(There's a web of trust so to speak, with journalism and investigative reporting).

Post reply on HN