4 ms·
> Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) What basis do you have for the (probably true) rating? The man literally told people he resche
by SamBam 10y ago
> Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true)
What basis do you have for the (probably true) rating?
The man literally told people he rescheduled his election-changing news conference from a balcony to a middle-of-the-night webcast, because he thought a sniper was going to kill him on the balcony. As if this was likely. Then it turned out his election-changing news conference was an advert for his book.
The man is great at marketing himself.
- jacquesm 10y agoBecause he could easily prove his internet access wasn't shut down by sending out a message to the contrary. Also the Ecuadorian embassy could deny it. Absent any proof that he actually has access I'm going on the assumption that he does not because that is what they claim. Now whether or not it really is a state actor (could be Ecuador!), Assange's laptop frying the network card or some other reason why he hasn't got access (didn't pay the phone bill?) is up for grabs.
- SamBam 10y agoWhat? He claims he had his internet cut off. You say the proof is that he hasn't sent out a message to the contrary. Ummm.... Do you understand what I'm saying when I say I don't believe Assange when he says his internet is cut off? Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the Ecuadorian embassy has a policy against making any sort of statements about Assange.
- jacquesm 10y agoHis internet is cut off or it isn't. Claiming it is when it is not so will undermine his credibility for no gain at all. Note that Wikileaks is making the claim not Assange and they are not the same entity (they'd have to, given that Assange can't go online). Now, it could all be not true but what would be the point of lying about this when the truth will come out regardless?
- SamBam 10y ago1. Because it makes him seem like a martyr to the cause without him actually having to do anything, just like when he implied he couldn't give a speech on the embassy balcony because Clinton's forces were about to kill him with a sniper rifle. (http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/wikileaks-huge-hillary-announcement/ http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/wikileaks-huge-hillary-a...) ...so he had his followers tune into a 3AM webcast instead, which ended up just being a promo sales pitch for his book. He is excellent at marketing. 2. The truth will not "come out regardless" if he was lying. It's very hard to prove a negative. Even if the embassy puts out an announcement saying "As far as we know, his internet is fine," Wikileaks can just say "The embassy is in cahoots with the Americans," or "It was cut earlier, and sources told me it was the gubbment." No one will care much at that point, his martyrdom point will have been made.
- jacquesm 10y agoTime will tell. You could be right, you could be not. I believe that if Assange says something that is not truthful that reflects bad on Ecuador (one possible explanation is that Ecuador blocked his access) that they would make a statement if what he said was incorrect. And I'd believe them over Assange if that's what it came to.
- jacquesm 10y agoSo, it appears Assange's internet was in fact cut off, and that the 'state actor' was Ecuador. Disingenuous even if technically true.