331–340 of 432 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this being downvoted? It's true and has been explained by Emma Best herself https://archive.is/0VsQR
The parent says > Zeynep isn’t concerned with accuracy either But your link says > Zeynep Tufekci never lied, exaggerated or retracted her article (which was accurate). So I don't see how one explains the other.
I think this really kills the idea that Assange was ever a real journalist. Directing cyber attacks and theft of information is not journalism.
Being charged with something is a far cry from being found guilty of something! This is a federal court finding that people that revealed the war crimes its government perpetrated "did so illegally". Meanwhile they of course don't file charges against the war criminals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is well taken. However, I would point out that with respect to the disclosure counts there is some legal relevance to the frequent message board debate about whether he is a "journalist" or not. The false claim that he is one is made due to the belief it will provide him with a modicum of legal protection against some of the disclosure counts. It wont help him at all when it comes to the computer intrusi…
There's an awfully tough hill to climb for any argument suggesting that any kind of intentionality, journalistic or humanitarian or otherwise, might immunize someone for literally dispatching Lulzsec with a list of targets. The law will see the winged monkeys and draw the obvious conclusion about what kind of person dispatches those. Of course, we're working solely from the indictment, and Assange will make his own c…
By far the most likely outcome is that he will receive a fair trial, be convicted, and then justice will be done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US seems to be totally fine about opinions expressed from freely available data. They don't like a campaign to leak everything that can be caught hold of. So I would not compare the reaction to Assange to a general reaction to journalism.
How can you form adequate opinions if you know only one part of the truth? The part you know can be easily manipulated so that your opinion corresponds to the wishes of the government in control. This is why journalism is mainly about publishing information. The part where the writer gives their opinion is actually optional. Also, this is why good news organizations (Reuters, etc) are doing investigations (this is in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for chiming in. I would also add that he put aid workers and activists at risk [1] and caused potential harm, torture, and death to dissidents in Afghanistan and Iraq [2]. Indiscriminate doxing to accomplish a radical agenda is not journalism. My view-- which I admit is broader than the point you made-- is that he is a criminal and should be tried and convicted. It makes me sick to my stomach that he cloaks hi…
> he cloaks his actions in the hard work and bravery of our free press. What specifically are you invoking here as the "free press" ? There is very little free press in the United States. The overwhelming majority of what is called the press consists of mouthpieces for the ruling power structure, analogous to state media in the USSR. I agree it would have been better for documents to be reviewed before publication ra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UN's own press statements refer to the Special Rapporteurs as "UN Experts" https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
There is a reason people have to put annoyingly long official titles in when discussing persons and their opinions. "UN Special Rapporteur" does not equal the UN, it specially does not equal an official position of the UN which is what the user tried to do. You have to be specific. "UN Special Rapporteur" does not equal the UN, which is why that specific language is put onto the footer of all their articles.
I don't know how you cans ay that, when the UN press briefings literally refer to them as a "UN expert".
Yes it's a financially independent position to remove as much bias as possible, but it is very much an official UN position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It very much was around in the 1970s, and you have no idea what his sex life was. But none of this is any of our business.
Given that the first recognised death from AIDS was in the 80s, I'd dispute your saying that it was very much around in the 70s. I don't know what his sex life was like but as far as we know he wasn't a prostitute, a I.V. drug user or gay, so yeah he wasn't in any of the demographics hardest hit.
> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…
I'm generally on Assange's side in all of this. I agree he shouldn't be charged and this is all a disgrace. Having said that, I once went to wikileaks and found a PDF of Steve Job's supposed STD test which claimed he was HIV positive. That was a surprise to me as my understanding was that he died of cancer. I looked into it and no one could corroborate the story and the general consensus seemed to be that it was fake…
I’m honestly upset that this sort of information was released
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That wasn't your distinction, though. You used the term "public figure" and I think it's a bit dramatic to say that he was doxxed when he wrote under his full name until 2013, references those writings frequently and used that full name on the blog as recently as last year. Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.
> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't. Don't put words in the other person's mouth. Instead, what people are saying is that if someone has a huge amount of power, then we don't really care about their privacy. Someone running a blog does not have a huge amount of power. Someone running a trillion dollar company, or running or president, or whatever, does have a huge amount of power. Thats…
I agree that Steve Jobs is more powerful than even an influential blogger, but they are both public figures. Who exactly is allowed to do the calculus about how much private information is appropriate to publish about someone according to their level of power? To me it seems to be a binary: are they a public figure or not.
When it's a breach of journalistic ethics to publish information about a blogger that's provided on or linked to from said blog (I think it is a breach, he made a specific request not to) it's much more egregious to publish an apparently forged health record of a CEO.
At no point do I think that not caring about someone's privacy means it's acceptable to publish false information about them.