221–227 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That charge makes no sense. By that logic, were Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey also tools of the Russian government?
I would argue that Wikileaks should be held more accountable for what it publishes under its own name than Zuckerberg for anything posted on Facebook. That said, I have no problem saying Facebook was a tool of Russian propaganda.
Accountable for what? In what way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are arguing that it's part of an NWO conspiracy... I provided an objective view of the action you were discussing, because it seems you're drawing form inferences and assumptions, as there is clearly not sufficient evidence to support a NWO conspiracy belief. It was an attempt to allow you to connect the dots for me, by starting from the (in my opinion) reasonable act which is implied to be the smoking gun.
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…
Yet you attribute that to WikiLeaks (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18848920): "If Wikileaks had their way I don't think you'd like the NWO that Putin and China would build for us."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
At least you haven't caught me lying before, doesn't that count for anything?
Even most o the journalism prices don't mean much anymore. Here in Germany there was just a scandal of a journalist faking many stories, who had also won lots of prices with them (Claas Relotius). In some articles about him it was also mentioned that by now there is also a kind of "inflation" of journalism prices. I think they also serve the purpose of creating a fake aura of trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
okay. but if it did happen, how would you (or I) have seen this footage? governments don't open source all their intelligence gathering as it happens. Hardly seems like a relevant point that refutes the Guardian's description of it happening
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'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. There are way too many people here jumping on the “evil Assange” angle while defending their pet media outlets, or only condemning the media they don’t agree with. Like it or not, and whether this list is tacky or not, there are fundamental truths that should be the focus of this discussion. The media manipulated and lies and as a result we have a severely misinformed population. We probably would anyway, bu…
But we've had media lying before, media lying about objectively important issues of life and death (far more important than allegations of Trump campaign colluding with Russians) such as headline NYT articles alleging justification for invading Iraq (the greatest crime of its century), and yet the discussants here and in corporate media want us to take this seriously. One has always had to be careful reading the medi…
I often have friends try to convince me of something they read. After examining the article the source, I demonstrate how the words in the article don’t actually support the headline. It’s not that they didn’t read past the headline - it’s that the article is set up in a way that makes you think it’s convinced you, even tho it fails to do that. There’s somewhat of a pattern, like: claim, talking around the claim, declaring that the claim was proven. I’m not sure what it is exactly, but I’ve had doctors and researchers fail to pick up on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's certainly false.
How can you say this when the current understanding is that Guccifer 2.0 was a persona operated by the Russian military? Even if Assange was acting in good faith (a big assumption) , he was used to push Russian propaganda. There's no question he was a tool of the Russian government.