8 ms·

I had a lot more sympathy for Assange and Wikileaks before the recent releases that seem to have been timed to influence the US elections. Also, why has it tak

by whyenot 10y ago

I had a lot more sympathy for Assange and Wikileaks before the recent releases that seem to have been timed to influence the US elections. Also, why has it taken so long for him to agree to an interview on the rape allegations? Yes, it's possible, as Assange has asserted, that it is bogus, but there are also two victims who deserve some closure.

ryanlol 10y ago
>Yes, it's possible, as Assange has asserted, that it is bogus, but there are also two victims who deserve some closure. Worth noting that the two victims have also stated that the allegations are false.
- alex_hitchins 10y ago
  Got a link for that?
- Kiro 10y ago
  I googled this a lot and didn't find anything supporting this. Source please.
bogomipz 10y ago
I am curious why your sympathy changed after the recents leaks.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  Well, so question (and this is an honest one): suppose Russia or China hacked into government facilities and then leaked information that influenced the election. Do you see that as okay? Next, suppose Russia or China supported an independent actor who did the same. Is that okay? Now, remember, these are foreign actors with their own agendas. They may have very good reason to, say, doctor the releases or groom them in a way that best serves their interests. So, on the one hand, one could argue that information should be free, transparency is important, etc, etc. Ultimately, they're doing everyone a service. On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct. It's not a black-and-white issue by any means.
  - oxide 10y ago
    >On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct. unless it happens to be of benefit of the candidate you support, of course. then it's all hunky-dory. of course I'm just kidding. however, there are people that feel this way, and these folks definitely see the issue in black and white.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    > Well, so question (and this is an honest one): suppose Russia or China hacked into government facilities and then leaked information that influenced the election. > Do you see that as okay? Yes. > On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct. I don't think there is. What if Russia or China or Germany issued a statement expressing their point of view that influenced the election. Do you see that as okay? Russia and China are under no obligation to keep the citizens of the US ignorant of things that candidates for the Presidency of the US would prefer them to be ignorant about. Also, the US has never shown any hesitation in leaking information, commenting on or directly funding candidates or movements that it preferred in either country.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - zzalpha 10y ago
      I don't think there is. What if Russia or China or Germany issued a statement of their point of view that influenced the election. Do you see that as okay? I don't view it as equivalent. It's kinda like the difference between marketing and corporate espionage. On the one hand, we have a sovereign nation stating a position. On the other, we have a (potentially hidden) sovereign nation exposing the communications of others. The difference is in the (supposed) attribution of the communication. In the former case people will recognize it as naked politics and ignore it. In the latter, the level of trust in the information goes up since it's (supposedly) attributable to someone from the nation being manipulated, which to me is far more likely to sway people's opinions and effect the kind of manipulation being sought. Anyway, we can clearly agree to disagree on this one, as fundamentally it's a matter of personal values. Speaking for myself, I would generally prefer that nation states leave domestic politics of other nations alone (and yes, that's a general statement that applies to every nation). Which I suppose is pretty easy to say until there's a totalitarian regime committing genocide or something... Like I say, not black and white. :)
revelation 10y ago
> timed to influence the US elections Obviously? Do you think Thiel is spending his money after the election? The wording seems designed to suggest something nefarious going on when at least with WikiLeaks you get original material instead of you know SuperPAC radio spots.
- the_watcher 10y ago
  Thiel doesn't claim to be a nonpartisan advocate for privacy. Thiel's support for Trump is frankly baffling, and worth condemning. However, Assange spent years claiming to be on the side of transparency and being above politics. Then, he intentionally timed new releases to be most impactful in the elections, almost certainly at the direction of Russia. Regardless of who you are voting for, he's lost all credibility as a transparency advocate, and has been revealed to be a propagandist.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    Indeed. If he were actually about transparency he'd have released all the info at once. For some reason he seems to have new releases ready right when Trump is taking a beating in the news. I doubt he is actively trying to subvert the election, but whoever is feeding him the information seems to be trying.
    - nullc 10y ago
      Data dumps are not transparency, the fact that wikileaks is excessively data-dumpy is one of the major complaints about them by traditional media. Data is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Dumping a lot of data at once is how you bury it, not bring it to light.
      - the_watcher 10y ago
        He's dumped tons of it at once, on multiple occasions
      - cwilkes 10y ago
chinese_dan 10y ago
"I had a lot more sympathy for Assange and Wikileaks before the recent releases that seem to have been timed to influence the US elections." Since pretty much all of the mainstream media influences the US elections with their bias, I'm happy that there is an actual source of information that they can't ignore.
jahewson 10y ago
Also, why has it taken so long for him to agree to an interview on the rape allegations? It hasn't. The Swedish prosecutors have been the ones refusing to hold the interview, not Assange.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  What is the reasoning? They aren't going to fly to Ecuador to interview someone they consider a flight from justice?
  - ejstronge 10y ago
    He's currently in England, not Ecuador
    - res0nat0r 10y ago
      Er, the Ecuadorian embassy, but that doesn't alter the point of my question...
      - ryanlol 10y ago
        He's not fled justice in Sweden either, but the UK.
  - pacifist 10y ago
    Assange is in London.
- notahacker 10y ago
  He actually had an interview earlier this week scheduled well in advance. It involved a prosecutor from the state which is hosting him and publicly objecting to the prosecution process asking him questions prepared in advance, with no prospect whatsoever of arrest at the end which was the whole purpose of Sweden wanting to question him. He still pulled out. Apparently his legal team had something more important to be doing that day, or something, so we have to wait until next month. Again. In the mean time, we're supposed to believe the Hillary Clinton campaign really, really wants you to pay more attention to Julian Assange and his website, and it's only mainstream media that lies to us.
aaron695 10y ago
"Closure" is an idiotic statement invented by the American media. And the statement doesn't make sense. Why do they deserve "closure" if it was possibly bogus?
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Are we still trying to trumpet the claim that the entire allegation was part of the big set up to extradite Assange, or smear / assassinate his character? Because if it was "he had somewhat consensual sleepy-sex" (no offense meant) "and now we want an STD test" is a pretty pathetic character attack for a state - I highly doubt that was the best they could muster.
aaron695 10y ago
"Closure" is an idiotic statement invented by the American media. And the statement doesn't make sense. Why do they deserve "closure" if it was bogus?
Taek 10y ago
I went to an event where Assange spoke, and I'm not sure if that's part of why I hold this opinion, but it's been pretty clear to me for many months that Assange is intentionally doing everything he can do keep Clinton out of office. Is that wrong? Certainly the bias is there. But it seems to have reasonable weight behind it as well. I am too young to understand what Wikileaks used to stand for, but their activity today seems to be centered on keeping corruption out of America, and that seems noble enough to me. Maybe though it's a step down from what they used to be.
- heurist 10y ago
  If he were an American citizen I'd be fine with what he's doing, but since he isn't I don't see why he should have any say in how we govern ourselves, even if we don't do it well. The fact is Clinton's opponent is far worse to American (and global) sensibilities than she is, so anything he's doing is just aiding the more destructive, tyrannical, morally bankrupt option. If he's trying to prevent corruption he is utterly failing. Our systems are far from optimal but they are in balance for the time being, and that gives us the opportunity to change things while minimizing chaos. Chaos would ruin us, and that's what Assange is trying to incite.
angry-hacker 10y ago
More sympathy because it doesn't fit your narrative? I´m glad they are revealing the hypocrites Hillary and the Democratic party. We already know who Trump is. At least he is honest and is the same man behind the scene as at the spotlight.
- tombone12 10y ago
  Trump is not honest; telling obvious lies is not honesty, it is incompetent dishonesty.
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    At least he is consistent and he is the same person in the locker room as well as in public. A total scumbag. Hillary is a habitual lier and hypocrite. Happy voting.
    - tombone12 10y ago
      Yeah, she is transparently a boring establishment proxy, but so what? The US constitution is intended to preserve the establishments power, and you think its fine to celebrate that like a holy relic. I don't get this overhyped aggression towards Hillary, her crime is basically to be a career politician. How can that be comparable to the idiot scumbag running for president?
      - jazzyk 10y ago
        Being an idiot is not a crime. Being a corrupt senior government official and selling US interests for money to foreign actors- is.

by whyenot 10y ago

ryanlol 10y ago

>Yes, it's possible, as Assange has asserted, that it is bogus, but there are also two victims who deserve some closure. Worth noting that the two victims have also stated that the allegations are false.

alex_hitchins 10y ago
Got a link for that?
Kiro 10y ago
I googled this a lot and didn't find anything supporting this. Source please.

bogomipz 10y ago

I am curious why your sympathy changed after the recents leaks.

zzalpha 10y ago
Well, so question (and this is an honest one): suppose Russia or China hacked into government facilities and then leaked information that influenced the election. Do you see that as okay? Next, suppose Russia or China supported an independent actor who did the same. Is that okay? Now, remember, these are foreign actors with their own agendas. They may have very good reason to, say, doctor the releases or groom them in a way that best serves their interests. So, on the one hand, one could argue that information should be free, transparency is important, etc, etc. Ultimately, they're doing everyone a service. On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct. It's not a black-and-white issue by any means.
- oxide 10y ago
  >On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct. unless it happens to be of benefit of the candidate you support, of course. then it's all hunky-dory. of course I'm just kidding. however, there are people that feel this way, and these folks definitely see the issue in black and white.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > Well, so question (and this is an honest one): suppose Russia or China hacked into government facilities and then leaked information that influenced the election. > Do you see that as okay? Yes. > On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct. I don't think there is. What if Russia or China or Germany issued a statement expressing their point of view that influenced the election. Do you see that as okay? Russia and China are under no obligation to keep the citizens of the US ignorant of things that candidates for the Presidency of the US would prefer them to be ignorant about. Also, the US has never shown any hesitation in leaking information, commenting on or directly funding candidates or movements that it preferred in either country.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    I don't think there is. What if Russia or China or Germany issued a statement of their point of view that influenced the election. Do you see that as okay? I don't view it as equivalent. It's kinda like the difference between marketing and corporate espionage. On the one hand, we have a sovereign nation stating a position. On the other, we have a (potentially hidden) sovereign nation exposing the communications of others. The difference is in the (supposed) attribution of the communication. In the former case people will recognize it as naked politics and ignore it. In the latter, the level of trust in the information goes up since it's (supposedly) attributable to someone from the nation being manipulated, which to me is far more likely to sway people's opinions and effect the kind of manipulation being sought. Anyway, we can clearly agree to disagree on this one, as fundamentally it's a matter of personal values. Speaking for myself, I would generally prefer that nation states leave domestic politics of other nations alone (and yes, that's a general statement that applies to every nation). Which I suppose is pretty easy to say until there's a totalitarian regime committing genocide or something... Like I say, not black and white. :)

revelation 10y ago

> timed to influence the US elections Obviously? Do you think Thiel is spending his money after the election? The wording seems designed to suggest something nefarious going on when at least with WikiLeaks you get original material instead of you know SuperPAC radio spots.

the_watcher 10y ago
Thiel doesn't claim to be a nonpartisan advocate for privacy. Thiel's support for Trump is frankly baffling, and worth condemning. However, Assange spent years claiming to be on the side of transparency and being above politics. Then, he intentionally timed new releases to be most impactful in the elections, almost certainly at the direction of Russia. Regardless of who you are voting for, he's lost all credibility as a transparency advocate, and has been revealed to be a propagandist.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  Indeed. If he were actually about transparency he'd have released all the info at once. For some reason he seems to have new releases ready right when Trump is taking a beating in the news. I doubt he is actively trying to subvert the election, but whoever is feeding him the information seems to be trying.
  - nullc 10y ago
    Data dumps are not transparency, the fact that wikileaks is excessively data-dumpy is one of the major complaints about them by traditional media. Data is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Dumping a lot of data at once is how you bury it, not bring it to light.
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      He's dumped tons of it at once, on multiple occasions
    - cwilkes 10y ago

chinese_dan 10y ago

"I had a lot more sympathy for Assange and Wikileaks before the recent releases that seem to have been timed to influence the US elections." Since pretty much all of the mainstream media influences the US elections with their bias, I'm happy that there is an actual source of information that they can't ignore.

jahewson 10y ago

Also, why has it taken so long for him to agree to an interview on the rape allegations? It hasn't. The Swedish prosecutors have been the ones refusing to hold the interview, not Assange.

res0nat0r 10y ago
What is the reasoning? They aren't going to fly to Ecuador to interview someone they consider a flight from justice?
- ejstronge 10y ago
  He's currently in England, not Ecuador
  - res0nat0r 10y ago
    Er, the Ecuadorian embassy, but that doesn't alter the point of my question...
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      He's not fled justice in Sweden either, but the UK.
- pacifist 10y ago
  Assange is in London.
notahacker 10y ago
He actually had an interview earlier this week scheduled well in advance. It involved a prosecutor from the state which is hosting him and publicly objecting to the prosecution process asking him questions prepared in advance, with no prospect whatsoever of arrest at the end which was the whole purpose of Sweden wanting to question him. He still pulled out. Apparently his legal team had something more important to be doing that day, or something, so we have to wait until next month. Again. In the mean time, we're supposed to believe the Hillary Clinton campaign really, really wants you to pay more attention to Julian Assange and his website, and it's only mainstream media that lies to us.

aaron695 10y ago

"Closure" is an idiotic statement invented by the American media. And the statement doesn't make sense. Why do they deserve "closure" if it was possibly bogus?

FireBeyond 10y ago
Are we still trying to trumpet the claim that the entire allegation was part of the big set up to extradite Assange, or smear / assassinate his character? Because if it was "he had somewhat consensual sleepy-sex" (no offense meant) "and now we want an STD test" is a pretty pathetic character attack for a state - I highly doubt that was the best they could muster.

aaron695 10y ago

"Closure" is an idiotic statement invented by the American media. And the statement doesn't make sense. Why do they deserve "closure" if it was bogus?

Taek 10y ago

I went to an event where Assange spoke, and I'm not sure if that's part of why I hold this opinion, but it's been pretty clear to me for many months that Assange is intentionally doing everything he can do keep Clinton out of office. Is that wrong? Certainly the bias is there. But it seems to have reasonable weight behind it as well. I am too young to understand what Wikileaks used to stand for, but their activity today seems to be centered on keeping corruption out of America, and that seems noble enough to me. Maybe though it's a step down from what they used to be.

heurist 10y ago
If he were an American citizen I'd be fine with what he's doing, but since he isn't I don't see why he should have any say in how we govern ourselves, even if we don't do it well. The fact is Clinton's opponent is far worse to American (and global) sensibilities than she is, so anything he's doing is just aiding the more destructive, tyrannical, morally bankrupt option. If he's trying to prevent corruption he is utterly failing. Our systems are far from optimal but they are in balance for the time being, and that gives us the opportunity to change things while minimizing chaos. Chaos would ruin us, and that's what Assange is trying to incite.

angry-hacker 10y ago

More sympathy because it doesn't fit your narrative? I´m glad they are revealing the hypocrites Hillary and the Democratic party. We already know who Trump is. At least he is honest and is the same man behind the scene as at the spotlight.

tombone12 10y ago
Trump is not honest; telling obvious lies is not honesty, it is incompetent dishonesty.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  At least he is consistent and he is the same person in the locker room as well as in public. A total scumbag. Hillary is a habitual lier and hypocrite. Happy voting.
  - tombone12 10y ago
    Yeah, she is transparently a boring establishment proxy, but so what? The US constitution is intended to preserve the establishments power, and you think its fine to celebrate that like a holy relic. I don't get this overhyped aggression towards Hillary, her crime is basically to be a career politician. How can that be comparable to the idiot scumbag running for president?
    - jazzyk 10y ago
      Being an idiot is not a crime. Being a corrupt senior government official and selling US interests for money to foreign actors- is.