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

201–210 of 227 posts

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

#201

Post by briffle »

elif wrote: post #133
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

  The DNC does not function as a popular vote, but with a complex system of campaigning, finance, and ultimately delegate voting.
That part confuses me, since my tax dollars paid for my states primary election. Why are we subsidizing an internal party process?

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

#202

Post by fixermark »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #180
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'…

More ironically, you’ve just demonstrated exactly why they found it necessary to address these incorrect claims.

Can you clarify which claim is incorrect?

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

#203

Post by not2b »

fixermark wrote: post #115
scottlocklin wrote: post #69

The funny thing about this is, Wikileaks very effectively got a media outlet to publish a long list of corrections to media lies about Wikileaks. Great self own, ars technica!

It'd be a valid self-own if they were lies. Since the truth of them is in dispute, it comes off more as a list of nerves the media has struck on a very vain man.

But at least some of the "false and defamatory" items are definitely true. For example, he jumped bail, and the contributors who put up his bail forfeited their money. But Assange thinks that I am being defamatory for stating this true fact.

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

#204

Post by nkurz »

bootlooped wrote: post #198
nkurz wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we're unlikely to get an official statement from Wikileaks here (although it's not impossible) perhaps we could go the other way. Maybe you could research whichever of these you think is most clearly false, and report the evidence you find? My guess is that they are all technically true (as in, he didn't "breach his bail" because he never paid a bail), but it's also possible that at least one is an outright lie…

Here's an article about when he was released on bail: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12005930 And here's how the people who posted the bail were ordered to pay the remainder when he breached the terms: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange... Absconded: To leave quickly and secretly and hide oneself, often to avoid arrest or prosecution. He left his house arrest location quickly and secretly to av…

OK, that convinces me: it's a lie to say that Julian Assange has never breached his bail.

Version 1.3 of the document says: "It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever "breached his bail", "jumped bail", absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that he has ever been charged with such at any time."

And yet we have a decision by a UK judge that Assange "failed to appear in accordance with the conditions of his bail" and that "the associate sureties should be forfeited": https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Ju...

So while I can see why Wikileaks might try to argue that seeking asylum instead of appearing did not "breach his bail", there is a clear UK legal judgment saying that he did. It's a lie for Wikileaks to claim otherwise.

Nice job. I'd suggest passing it on the author of the post (Emma Best) to see if she can publicize this clear example.

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

#205

Post by Smithalicious »

mrguyorama wrote: post #78
soundwave106 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we have any document released yet that describes any full picture. We do have this statement (and a little more detail inside) in a report by a joint report by the US Intelligence Community (regarding Russian interference with elections): "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com t…

>and actually stooped into ridiculous conspiracy theory involving USAID and George Soros Just using the "George Soros" dog whistle should disqualify them as a reliable source

George Soros is a billionaire and very prolific political activist. Just mentioning his name does not make a dog whistle, since he legitimately does have a lot of influence. Of course, I do think that people acting as though he controls the world is a dog whistle, but we shouldn't act like he never has a finger in the pie.

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

#206

Post by vetrom »

While HN does not have a great appetite for jokes, this sort of anti-chucknorris list could go far. That said, I also think much is lost between the journalistic climate between common / civil law jurisdictions, especially as it pertains to libel law. Wikileaks, as an organisation, and independent of any particular motivational bias has a clear and present interest in maintaining and pursuing a list such as this. I'm pretty sure pretty much any journalistic or advocational/lobbyist organanisation in any jurisdiction with a libel clause has a clear and present interest in maintaining this sort of stance, even if as an American you think it shouldn't be necessary.

That doesn't mean I agree with it, but if you operate in a commonwealth country and do anything controversial, I'd say it's pretty much mandatory.

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

#207

Post by vetrom »

vetrom wrote: post #206

While HN does not have a great appetite for jokes, this sort of anti-chucknorris list could go far. That said, I also think much is lost between the journalistic climate between common / civil law jurisdictions, especially as it pertains to libel law. Wikileaks, as an organisation, and independent of any particular motivational bias has a clear and present interest in maintaining and pursuing a list such as this. I'm…

for those who arent aware of some of the differences, a factual defense -- i.e. you're only speaking provable truth -- is not a defense against a libel suit in say the UK.

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

#208

Post by NeedMoreTea »

vetrom wrote: post #207
vetrom wrote: post #206

While HN does not have a great appetite for jokes, this sort of anti-chucknorris list could go far. That said, I also think much is lost between the journalistic climate between common / civil law jurisdictions, especially as it pertains to libel law. Wikileaks, as an organisation, and independent of any particular motivational bias has a clear and present interest in maintaining and pursuing a list such as this. I'm…

for those who arent aware of some of the differences, a factual defense -- i.e. you're only speaking provable truth -- is not a defense against a libel suit in say the UK.

The defence of fair comment is effectively a factual defence in UK law.

If the statement(s) are shown to be views anyone could be expect to hold, ie including truth, the defendant can countersue for fraud. I don't know if the changes to the law during the coalition removed all the grounds for libel tourism, but that was the intent.

Some cyclist, I forget who, did against one of our newspapers about some doping scandal. He won significant damages. It sticks in the mind as he was later found guilty of doping and ended up admitting it and compensating the newspaper.

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

#209

Post by jancsika »

fixermark wrote: post #200
thatoneuser wrote: post #164

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.

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 further on the subject.

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

#210

Post by phaus »

cowpig wrote: post #189
thatoneuser wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your criticism is about news entities cherry picking facts or making sensational headlines then you’re gonna have to target more than Wikileaks and alt-right journalism. Mainstream media, regardless of the political side, does this on the regular. I’d say it’s more this than “open objective news” by a large margin.

There is no such thing as "open objective news". Not because there isn't enough honesty in journalism or whatever. It's because even if you just published raw video footage, that would have to eventually be lossily disseminated by somebody in the form of a "story" before it reached 99.99+% of the world, and that lossy compression is going to be biased by worldview.

Cognitive bias is something that everyone deals with. There are tons of techniques and processes that journalists are supposed to employ in an effort to minimize its effects. One example would be analysis of competing hypotheses. Another example would be an exercise where you attempt to find evidence that disproves your theory about a particular subject.

You can't achieve a perfect level of objectivity, but if you put an honest effort into attempting to be objective by employing techniques to minimize bias, you can do a hell of a lot better than most journalists are doing today.

When people say they want "open objective news" they are fully aware that perfect objectivity does not exist. So it should be pretty obvious to anyone reading a statement that news should be open and objective that the person making the statement doesn't intend to hold journalists to an impossible standard. They just want them to do the things that we and the journalists already know will work to minimize partisanship and bias. Instead they almost universally decide to manipulate the public and promote their respective ideologies.

Post reply on HN