4 ms·

I don't understand. No privacy for organizations or no privacy for everyone? And who decides what an organization is? Two people? Three?

contingencies 10y ago
This tired argument is neither logical nor relevant. The reality is that in a pre-Wikileaks world, leaks also existed. The new reality is not "evil persona holds dagger to your throat", rather that motivated persons are empowered to securely spill secrets the world over. By turning around the fallacious "nothing to hide" argument, Assange is making some secretive groups quite literally pay and squirm against the possibility of unknown assailants and the 'threat' of real transparency. Good job.
- justifier 10y ago
  fair, but the parent was bringing attention to the notion of editorialising received leaks pay and squirm sounds vindicative and that sentiment is self referencing because the ones paying and squirming are doing so because how they would editorialise is fundamentally different then those doing the editorialising from the site as of this writing under the submit page(o): > WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives. importance is the language of an editor.. censor? (o) https://wikileaks.com/#submit https://wikileaks.com/#submit
- dogma1138 10y ago
  There can be another argument in this, leaks effectively only affect already open and democratic societies, since authoritarian regimes are considerably less vulnerable to them and even immune natural selection would actually play against you. Leaks may very well not lead to some liberal pseudo anarchist utopia but lead to further consolidation of power, secrecy and more and more tougher reactions and control of information. And while you might think that this won't happen it will, leaks don't play that well in the public when they start touching individuals especially when you can spin them as an attack. Unconditional release of information especially in large leaks leads to the public being against the leakers. Releasing some DNC emails/documents might be acceptable by the majority of the public, releasing all the documents including donor information and private information of simple low level employees, volunteers or anyone who has registered or shown interest in a political party would not be well received by the public even without any spins.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    Authoritarian regimes in most cases maintain power over their population by controlling media 100%, they don't actually put shackles on their people, only on the few ones who see through it. If you are able to break their narrative then the dictatorship has no other way than using massive force to maintain control, in which case everybody will know from now on that they are being enslaved and this will have an effect in the future. (citizens will be less cooperative in a non offending way)
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      That's only partially the case, authoritarian regiems are also very good at indoctrinating their population which means that it's near impossible to break through, just look at N. Korea. They are also as you said control the media which means you control the narrative, wikileaks would have 0 impact if the media would not have picked their leaks up and run with them, the amount of people who access that site and read the information directly is negligible. Also since the regiems not only control the media but also the medium e.g. the internet good luck at breaking through, if it's truly a walled garden state there is very little you can actually do, and with the right amount of force and preemptive control over the narrative even a full external media blitz won't really help you. There is a difference between transparency and abuse, wikileaks is walking a very thin line, and it has passed it several times by refusing the curate information which does not score them any points. Assange's crusade against clinton does also not sit well with many people even if they mostly agree with his ideology, his latest interview on Real Time with Bill Maher about a month ago did not score him many points when he confronted Bill about his donations to the the democratic party.

contingencies 10y ago

This tired argument is neither logical nor relevant. The reality is that in a pre-Wikileaks world, leaks also existed. The new reality is not "evil persona holds dagger to your throat", rather that motivated persons are empowered to securely spill secrets the world over. By turning around the fallacious "nothing to hide" argument, Assange is making some secretive groups quite literally pay and squirm against the possibility of unknown assailants and the 'threat' of real transparency. Good job.

justifier 10y ago
fair, but the parent was bringing attention to the notion of editorialising received leaks pay and squirm sounds vindicative and that sentiment is self referencing because the ones paying and squirming are doing so because how they would editorialise is fundamentally different then those doing the editorialising from the site as of this writing under the submit page(o): > WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives. importance is the language of an editor.. censor? (o) https://wikileaks.com/#submit https://wikileaks.com/#submit
dogma1138 10y ago
There can be another argument in this, leaks effectively only affect already open and democratic societies, since authoritarian regimes are considerably less vulnerable to them and even immune natural selection would actually play against you. Leaks may very well not lead to some liberal pseudo anarchist utopia but lead to further consolidation of power, secrecy and more and more tougher reactions and control of information. And while you might think that this won't happen it will, leaks don't play that well in the public when they start touching individuals especially when you can spin them as an attack. Unconditional release of information especially in large leaks leads to the public being against the leakers. Releasing some DNC emails/documents might be acceptable by the majority of the public, releasing all the documents including donor information and private information of simple low level employees, volunteers or anyone who has registered or shown interest in a political party would not be well received by the public even without any spins.
- DominikR 10y ago
  Authoritarian regimes in most cases maintain power over their population by controlling media 100%, they don't actually put shackles on their people, only on the few ones who see through it. If you are able to break their narrative then the dictatorship has no other way than using massive force to maintain control, in which case everybody will know from now on that they are being enslaved and this will have an effect in the future. (citizens will be less cooperative in a non offending way)
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    That's only partially the case, authoritarian regiems are also very good at indoctrinating their population which means that it's near impossible to break through, just look at N. Korea. They are also as you said control the media which means you control the narrative, wikileaks would have 0 impact if the media would not have picked their leaks up and run with them, the amount of people who access that site and read the information directly is negligible. Also since the regiems not only control the media but also the medium e.g. the internet good luck at breaking through, if it's truly a walled garden state there is very little you can actually do, and with the right amount of force and preemptive control over the narrative even a full external media blitz won't really help you. There is a difference between transparency and abuse, wikileaks is walking a very thin line, and it has passed it several times by refusing the curate information which does not score them any points. Assange's crusade against clinton does also not sit well with many people even if they mostly agree with his ideology, his latest interview on Real Time with Bill Maher about a month ago did not score him many points when he confronted Bill about his donations to the the democratic party.