4 ms·

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

by 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. :)

pessimizer 10y ago
If you're saying that the problem is influencing someone else's election, then it is equivalent. If you're saying that the problem is hacks and leaks, I don't know how your problem with that isn't general, but only confined to foreign actors, and only now, with this election. Assange was always a foreign actor except when he was leaking about Australians. And it still needs to be said, there's no proof that the Russian state is involved. This is a cynical deflection to keep us from talking about the content of the leaks; one that prefers to escalate tensions with a nuclear power to acknowledging the truth about what some people have said when they thought no one else would hear.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  Just to be clear, I picked he Russia/China example as an illustration, not a claim they are actually involved. Maybe I should've picked Switzerland and Norway as my examples to avoid clouding the issue... ;)

by zzalpha 10y ago

pessimizer 10y ago

If you're saying that the problem is influencing someone else's election, then it is equivalent. If you're saying that the problem is hacks and leaks, I don't know how your problem with that isn't general, but only confined to foreign actors, and only now, with this election. Assange was always a foreign actor except when he was leaking about Australians. And it still needs to be said, there's no proof that the Russian state is involved. This is a cynical deflection to keep us from talking about the content of the leaks; one that prefers to escalate tensions with a nuclear power to acknowledging the truth about what some people have said when they thought no one else would hear.

zzalpha 10y ago
Just to be clear, I picked he Russia/China example as an illustration, not a claim they are actually involved. Maybe I should've picked Switzerland and Norway as my examples to avoid clouding the issue... ;)