5 ms·

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 Clinto

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
      "I assume since many mainstream sources show a strong bias, they also lost credibility with you?" The difference is they're profit generating machines we all know is bullshit where Wikileaks claims to be an activist organization fighting to get the truth out to take down business and government corruption. Then gets really focused on one political party to benefit of another corrupt party. I definitely will call that out. It's fine if they want to be just another biased, ego/profit-centric outlet. We'll just add them to list of sources, factor in bias, and try to determine truth. People will just have to stop treating it like it's trustworthy or an activist organization.
      - rfrank 10y ago
        Bias is acceptable if you're earning a profit? The "that we all know is bullshit" bit is highly debatable, and doesn't really reflect the reality of news consumption for most Americans [1]. How does releasing information on one party and not the other invalidate their position as activists? No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency? And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too? Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files, just to avoid the possibility of perceived bias? 1. http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/ http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "How does releasing information on one party and not the other invalidate their position as activists? " A consistent series of attacks focusing on the Left while the Right is doing lots of damage makes them activists against the Left specifically. Different than activists for civil rights or honest government/business. " No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency?" It's odd that we see revelations and reports on both of them consistently from groups like The Guardian and The Intercept but not this activist. "And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too?" He was before that. Constantly fund-raising then charging people for little Assange parties. These days he seems to be driven by ego and/or hate of government. His leaks and reports in the old days were a mix of evil government and business. "Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files" Now you're just making stuff up. That's nothing like a supposedly neutral organization covering two, known-dirty candidates who are constantly pulling stunts.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    > Trump has plenty of dirt they could report. How do you know? Maybe Trump has a modicum of security on whatever systems uses.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Because people other than Assange publish it. ;)
      - oh_sigh 10y ago
        What Trump data has been leaked/hacked?
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.

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
    "I assume since many mainstream sources show a strong bias, they also lost credibility with you?" The difference is they're profit generating machines we all know is bullshit where Wikileaks claims to be an activist organization fighting to get the truth out to take down business and government corruption. Then gets really focused on one political party to benefit of another corrupt party. I definitely will call that out. It's fine if they want to be just another biased, ego/profit-centric outlet. We'll just add them to list of sources, factor in bias, and try to determine truth. People will just have to stop treating it like it's trustworthy or an activist organization.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      Bias is acceptable if you're earning a profit? The "that we all know is bullshit" bit is highly debatable, and doesn't really reflect the reality of news consumption for most Americans [1]. How does releasing information on one party and not the other invalidate their position as activists? No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency? And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too? Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files, just to avoid the possibility of perceived bias? 1. http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/ http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "How does releasing information on one party and not the other invalidate their position as activists? " A consistent series of attacks focusing on the Left while the Right is doing lots of damage makes them activists against the Left specifically. Different than activists for civil rights or honest government/business. " No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency?" It's odd that we see revelations and reports on both of them consistently from groups like The Guardian and The Intercept but not this activist. "And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too?" He was before that. Constantly fund-raising then charging people for little Assange parties. These days he seems to be driven by ego and/or hate of government. His leaks and reports in the old days were a mix of evil government and business. "Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files" Now you're just making stuff up. That's nothing like a supposedly neutral organization covering two, known-dirty candidates who are constantly pulling stunts.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  > Trump has plenty of dirt they could report. How do you know? Maybe Trump has a modicum of security on whatever systems uses.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Because people other than Assange publish it. ;)
    - oh_sigh 10y ago
      What Trump data has been leaked/hacked?

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.