21–30 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought that was the whole idea? Let them curate and release the relevent information?
I guess. But many are pissed off about how little's been released. And about how much it's been monetized. Edit: OK, "profited from".
Not terribly surprised, it's been well known that Assange leaks what he wants, and doesn't care much after the leak. A lot of information, like the email "dumps" didn't have valid DKIM headers for one. A lot of their stuff is questionable at best now.
That form of censorship was not alleged. You are imagining things. They're accusing him of attempting to censor the personal stuff, such as the sexual misconduct allegations. Personally I'm mixed on whether those belong in a documentary about WikiLeaks given how irrelevant they are to the organizational purpose.
The specific claims: “In WikiLeaks’ efforts to prevent the distribution of ‘Risk,’ they are using the very tactics often used against them – legal threats, false security claims, underhanded personal attacks, misdirection – and with the same intentions: to suppress information and silence speech"
It is funny to see Wikileaks complaining about leaks. Not even leaks, but rather material provided voluntarily. They were obviously gobsmacked by Poitras turning on them. I must say, however, that Wikileaks overall censors leaks much less heavily than do Greenwald, Poitras and crew. I mean, does anyone know what percentage of Snowden's stuff that's been released? It's my impression that it's small. Edit: typo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess. But many are pissed off about how little's been released. And about how much it's been monetized. Edit: OK, "profited from".
How much has it been monetized? How do we know only a small amount of it was released?
The US government claims that he took millions of documents. We haven't seen more than thousands, I think. And I've read claims that only a small percentage has been released.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please provide sources? I verified a many of the DKIM headers myself and they were all fine. This was actually one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favor of the legitimacy of the emails. Also, I'm not sure why you say "it's well known"; it's not known to me, and I'm fairly interested in this area.
Hey, It's definitely been some time, but I noticed (personally verifying DKIM records) that a good chunk of the Podesta emails didn't pass. I'd have to dig out those exact emails again, unfortunately.
This is a huge claim, and if you can verify it, it will be very big news in the (fairly dedicated and savvy) communities that follow this.
Additionally, it's possible to provide airtight evidence to demonstrate this huge claim.
> I'd have to dig out those exact emails again, unfortunately.
Something of this magnitude is probably worth the time.
Assange comes off as a real machiavellian style asshole with vanity and manipulation seeming to him at least as important as his cause.
Snowden and Assange often seem to get lumped together but there's a world of difference in personal character, and also in mission. Saying such varied and complex issues are all just "leaking" does both their supporters and detractors a disservice. Details matter especially with so much at stake.
The specific claims: “In WikiLeaks’ efforts to prevent the distribution of ‘Risk,’ they are using the very tactics often used against them – legal threats, false security claims, underhanded personal attacks, misdirection – and with the same intentions: to suppress information and silence speech"
It is funny to see Wikileaks complaining about leaks. Not even leaks, but rather material provided voluntarily. They were obviously gobsmacked by Poitras turning on them. I must say, however, that Wikileaks overall censors leaks much less heavily than do Greenwald, Poitras and crew. I mean, does anyone know what percentage of Snowden's stuff that's been released? It's my impression that it's small. Edit: typo
I had forgotten that she and Appelbaum had been lovers. Bringing him into the mix destroys the film's objectivity.
I didn't know why he was so hell-bent against the movie then noticed this side link in the article: http://www.newsweek.com/documentary-inside-julian-assange-wo... Assange comes off as a real machiavellian style asshole with vanity and manipulation seeming to him at least as important as his cause. Snowden and Assange often seem to get lumped together but there's a world of difference in personal character, and also…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, It's definitely been some time, but I noticed (personally verifying DKIM records) that a good chunk of the Podesta emails didn't pass. I'd have to dig out those exact emails again, unfortunately.
Do you realize what you're saying here? This is a huge claim, and if you can verify it, it will be very big news in the (fairly dedicated and savvy) communities that follow this. Additionally, it's possible to provide airtight evidence to demonstrate this huge claim. > I'd have to dig out those exact emails again, unfortunately. Something of this magnitude is probably worth the time.
I did write up a little bit below in a comment, before your post:
I didn't know why he was so hell-bent against the movie then noticed this side link in the article: http://www.newsweek.com/documentary-inside-julian-assange-wo... Assange comes off as a real machiavellian style asshole with vanity and manipulation seeming to him at least as important as his cause. Snowden and Assange often seem to get lumped together but there's a world of difference in personal character, and also…
I don't know why people still support Assange so clearly. It was interesting to me that people on /r/The_Donald love Assange so much. Before this documentary, I posted there criticising Wikileaks and it was totally hated on. I find that weird because the idea that Assange is unreliable and fake, was the kind of somewhat-counter-main-narrative idea that I thought people of T_D would appreciate. They seem to see him as…
It was more about not wanting to rot in US prison, I think.