6 ms·

Informed decisions? Dripping random out of context emails to try and generate a conspiracy or uninformed internet rage weeks before an election is not at all tr

Informed decisions? Dripping random out of context emails to try and generate a conspiracy or uninformed internet rage weeks before an election is not at all trying to inform the public. Assange lost his neutral credibility long ago. What happened to dumping all data right after it is received? That isn't happening this time because he doesn't like big government and thus doesn't like Clinton.

contingencies 10y ago
On the one hand you criticize Wikileaks for publishing all the data they have received, implying it is 'random' and 'out of context', and that they are acting out of a want to 'generate a conspiracy or uninformed internet rage'. This implies that you would prefer they edit and interpret sources before publication. Unfortunately, on the other hand you want them to be 'neutral' and 'credible'. I believe Wikileaks does a good job of maintaining the middle ground by providing both raw documents and context and analysis. Your suggestion that they are generating conspiracies does not stand up to analysis: by providing raw documents they do the opposite. With regards to immediacy, Wikileaks has explained their processes in the past with regards to source validation. One of the most obvious attacks against the organization would be publishing false information through them to discredit them publicly. Therefore all information received must be carefully researched and validated, as well as anonymized, before publication.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  They lost credibility again this time around with daily drips right before the election. Anyone not biased realizes it is obvious they are trying to hurt Clinton. Dumping all they had at once when they received it would at least appear to be less of an agenda. They aren't providing "raw" documents since they are doing it now drip by drip, again trying to rile up uninformed folks right before the election.
  - contingencies 10y ago
    Have you seen https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ ?
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      The commenter's point is still true. It appears targeted straight at Clinton while Trump has plenty of dirt they could report. The timing is also not a coincidence as Assange previously did shock and awe campaigns like Collateral Murder. He knows what he's doing. Personally, though, he lost credibility for me after how he ditched Domsheit-Burg talking like a crazed egomaniac after deceiving many into thinking he had more staff and protection for them than he really did. Now, he's an egomaniac and has a strong, political bias. Practically graduated to position of one of corporate media's talking heads. Edit to add: just with more muckracking!
      - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
        Trump has nothing that wikileaks could report.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        People been reporting shit on Trump for years but it's scattered everywhere. If I was accused of shilling, I'd put that together into a report slamming him too. Plus solicit any dirt Republican insiders have on him in venues they probably read. Maybe that's just fair and impartial people like myself, though. ;)
      - choko 10y ago
        I think the more mainstream media sources have the Trump stuff covered already. Since they have done a poor job releasing and publicizing information on Clinton, I think wikileaks is providing a valuable service. I assume since many mainstream sources show a strong bias, they also lost credibility with you?
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
  - coriander2 10y ago
    Your claim has no validity unless you really believe Wikileaks would not have also published Trump leaks if they had their hands on them. Yes, it's likely the Russians are feeding them their info. But so fucking what? Wikileaks is just doing their job, and they have no obligation to play nice to Clinton while she has run a regime that has systematically attacked and denied Assange's ability to get a fair go in America.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    Sure they're trying to hurt Clinton. Dissemination of information is entirely okay, and this idea that Wikileaks has an OBLIGATION to remain "neutral" is stupid, picking the least damaging presidential candidate isn't some kind of activity where we all have to be "fair". If you aren't getting violent, there is no reason why you can't release whatever information you wish.
    - ebfe 10y ago
      I don't think that he's suggesting they have an "OBLIGATION" to remain neutral, but rather that he'd prefer they did.
      - JamesBarney 10y ago
        Just as Ecuador has no obligation to allow him to peddle that influence from their internet connection.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    >They lost credibility again this time around with daily drips right before the election. Anyone not biased realizes it is obvious they are trying to hurt Clinton. Do you make the same claim about the women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault the same day that leak was released? Or the person who released the "Grab her in the pussy" audio at that time? For sure they are biased, but everything they seem to release turns out to be real.
    - abawany 10y ago
      I saw this come up in the Thiel-related thread yesterday but didn't say anything but I will say it now: the right time for the release of the sexual assault reports for Trump was during the repub primaries. Releasing it now has not seemed to hurt him one bit in the eyes of his ardent fans.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        It moved the poll numbers pretty far. It really shows what Americans care about, sex.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        There's hasn't been that much movement since they came out, and even for the movement that has occurred, it's pretty hard to pull out the effects of the comments and allegations from things like the debates.
- Tomte 10y ago
  > On the one hand you criticize Wikileaks for publishing all the data they have received But they don't, as Assange has admitted himself. They publish data they deem worthy of publishing.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    Yeah, that's how it tends to work. Why publish something not worthy of publishing?
    - Tomte 10y ago
      Fine with me. I'm just rebutting the constant "they aren't out to get Hillary, they simply don't have material on Trump. Or Russia. Or..." and "of course they have published personal information of regular, non-prominent citizens. They publish everything" by the Wikileaks supporters

contingencies 10y ago

On the one hand you criticize Wikileaks for publishing all the data they have received, implying it is 'random' and 'out of context', and that they are acting out of a want to 'generate a conspiracy or uninformed internet rage'. This implies that you would prefer they edit and interpret sources before publication. Unfortunately, on the other hand you want them to be 'neutral' and 'credible'. I believe Wikileaks does a good job of maintaining the middle ground by providing both raw documents and context and analysis. Your suggestion that they are generating conspiracies does not stand up to analysis: by providing raw documents they do the opposite. With regards to immediacy, Wikileaks has explained their processes in the past with regards to source validation. One of the most obvious attacks against the organization would be publishing false information through them to discredit them publicly. Therefore all information received must be carefully researched and validated, as well as anonymized, before publication.

res0nat0r 10y ago
They lost credibility again this time around with daily drips right before the election. Anyone not biased realizes it is obvious they are trying to hurt Clinton. Dumping all they had at once when they received it would at least appear to be less of an agenda. They aren't providing "raw" documents since they are doing it now drip by drip, again trying to rile up uninformed folks right before the election.
- contingencies 10y ago
  Have you seen https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ ?
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    The commenter's point is still true. It appears targeted straight at Clinton while Trump has plenty of dirt they could report. The timing is also not a coincidence as Assange previously did shock and awe campaigns like Collateral Murder. He knows what he's doing. Personally, though, he lost credibility for me after how he ditched Domsheit-Burg talking like a crazed egomaniac after deceiving many into thinking he had more staff and protection for them than he really did. Now, he's an egomaniac and has a strong, political bias. Practically graduated to position of one of corporate media's talking heads. Edit to add: just with more muckracking!
    - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
      Trump has nothing that wikileaks could report.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        People been reporting shit on Trump for years but it's scattered everywhere. If I was accused of shilling, I'd put that together into a report slamming him too. Plus solicit any dirt Republican insiders have on him in venues they probably read. Maybe that's just fair and impartial people like myself, though. ;)
    - choko 10y ago
      I think the more mainstream media sources have the Trump stuff covered already. Since they have done a poor job releasing and publicizing information on Clinton, I think wikileaks is providing a valuable service. I assume since many mainstream sources show a strong bias, they also lost credibility with you?
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
- coriander2 10y ago
  Your claim has no validity unless you really believe Wikileaks would not have also published Trump leaks if they had their hands on them. Yes, it's likely the Russians are feeding them their info. But so fucking what? Wikileaks is just doing their job, and they have no obligation to play nice to Clinton while she has run a regime that has systematically attacked and denied Assange's ability to get a fair go in America.
- kakarot 10y ago
  Sure they're trying to hurt Clinton. Dissemination of information is entirely okay, and this idea that Wikileaks has an OBLIGATION to remain "neutral" is stupid, picking the least damaging presidential candidate isn't some kind of activity where we all have to be "fair". If you aren't getting violent, there is no reason why you can't release whatever information you wish.
  - ebfe 10y ago
    I don't think that he's suggesting they have an "OBLIGATION" to remain neutral, but rather that he'd prefer they did.
    - JamesBarney 10y ago
      Just as Ecuador has no obligation to allow him to peddle that influence from their internet connection.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  >They lost credibility again this time around with daily drips right before the election. Anyone not biased realizes it is obvious they are trying to hurt Clinton. Do you make the same claim about the women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault the same day that leak was released? Or the person who released the "Grab her in the pussy" audio at that time? For sure they are biased, but everything they seem to release turns out to be real.
  - abawany 10y ago
    I saw this come up in the Thiel-related thread yesterday but didn't say anything but I will say it now: the right time for the release of the sexual assault reports for Trump was during the repub primaries. Releasing it now has not seemed to hurt him one bit in the eyes of his ardent fans.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      It moved the poll numbers pretty far. It really shows what Americans care about, sex.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        There's hasn't been that much movement since they came out, and even for the movement that has occurred, it's pretty hard to pull out the effects of the comments and allegations from things like the debates.
Tomte 10y ago
> On the one hand you criticize Wikileaks for publishing all the data they have received But they don't, as Assange has admitted himself. They publish data they deem worthy of publishing.
- kakarot 10y ago
  Yeah, that's how it tends to work. Why publish something not worthy of publishing?
  - Tomte 10y ago
    Fine with me. I'm just rebutting the constant "they aren't out to get Hillary, they simply don't have material on Trump. Or Russia. Or..." and "of course they have published personal information of regular, non-prominent citizens. They publish everything" by the Wikileaks supporters