4 ms·

A well-drawn profile. Edit: see below for reasons. I accidentally posted this sentence early before finishing more of a post. Now I've instead made a response

A well-drawn profile. Edit: see below for reasons. I accidentally posted this sentence early before finishing more of a post. Now I've instead made a response to the question below

Jerry2 10y ago
How so? It's nothing more than character assassination.
- triplesec 10y ago
  I think this is a fair article, and no hatchet job. The writer has decided not to like Assange from working with him and experience. Some pull-outs that show thought over partisanship : 'Assange is routinely either so lionised by supporters or demonised by detractors that his real character is lost entirely. 'Far from the laptop-obsessed autist he’s often seen as, he’s a charismatic speaker with an easy ability to dominate a room or a conversation.' 'Assange often trusts strangers more than those he knows well: He dislikes taking advice, he dislikes anyone else having a power base, and he dislikes being challenged – especially by women. He runs his own show his own way, and won’t delegate. He’s happy to play on the conspiratorial urges of others, with little sign as to whether or not he believes them himself.' 'once you have fallen foul of Assange — challenged him too openly, criticised him in public, not toed the line loyally enough — you are done. There is no such thing as honest disagreement, no such thing as a loyal opposition differing on a policy or political stance.' ' Assange would not, in my view, ever knowingly be a willing tool of the Russian state: If Putin came and gave him a set of orders, they’d be ignored. But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions: He’s set up almost perfectly to post them and push for them to have the biggest impact they can.'
  - rahrahrah 10y ago
    > But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions Why would he? That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      And the highlight point is that someone can use that to provide a very one sided perspective if they only provide WikiLeaks one side of the story.
      - rahrahrah 10y ago
        Someone gets a leaks about something that the government of Haiti is doing. So they can't publish it unless they have something equally bad about every single government on the planet? You have to go find 200+ other leaks, only then you can publish them altogether, because otherwise it would be one-sided. What a stupid argument. Think, don't just repeat talking points.
        ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        You are ignoring the point. All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse. Someone could even choose to send WikiLeaks only the parts of the data they gathered that support their goals. Absolute positions such as WikiLeaks against careful decision making on what to leak and when can have unintended effects. Even if entirely well-meaning, they've opened themselves up to being exploited.
        rahrahrah 10y ago
        > All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse. And what I'm saying is that publishing everything as long as it's true, is not abuse, it's the actual goal.
        ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        I don't think we're going to ever be speaking on the same plane of reason in this conversation.
    - 10y ago

A well-drawn profile. Edit: see below for reasons. I accidentally posted this sentence early before finishing more of a post. Now I've instead made a response to the question below

Jerry2 10y ago

How so? It's nothing more than character assassination.

triplesec 10y ago
I think this is a fair article, and no hatchet job. The writer has decided not to like Assange from working with him and experience. Some pull-outs that show thought over partisanship : 'Assange is routinely either so lionised by supporters or demonised by detractors that his real character is lost entirely. 'Far from the laptop-obsessed autist he’s often seen as, he’s a charismatic speaker with an easy ability to dominate a room or a conversation.' 'Assange often trusts strangers more than those he knows well: He dislikes taking advice, he dislikes anyone else having a power base, and he dislikes being challenged – especially by women. He runs his own show his own way, and won’t delegate. He’s happy to play on the conspiratorial urges of others, with little sign as to whether or not he believes them himself.' 'once you have fallen foul of Assange — challenged him too openly, criticised him in public, not toed the line loyally enough — you are done. There is no such thing as honest disagreement, no such thing as a loyal opposition differing on a policy or political stance.' ' Assange would not, in my view, ever knowingly be a willing tool of the Russian state: If Putin came and gave him a set of orders, they’d be ignored. But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions: He’s set up almost perfectly to post them and push for them to have the biggest impact they can.'
- rahrahrah 10y ago
  > But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions Why would he? That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    And the highlight point is that someone can use that to provide a very one sided perspective if they only provide WikiLeaks one side of the story.
    - rahrahrah 10y ago
      Someone gets a leaks about something that the government of Haiti is doing. So they can't publish it unless they have something equally bad about every single government on the planet? You have to go find 200+ other leaks, only then you can publish them altogether, because otherwise it would be one-sided. What a stupid argument. Think, don't just repeat talking points.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        You are ignoring the point. All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse. Someone could even choose to send WikiLeaks only the parts of the data they gathered that support their goals. Absolute positions such as WikiLeaks against careful decision making on what to leak and when can have unintended effects. Even if entirely well-meaning, they've opened themselves up to being exploited.
        rahrahrah 10y ago
        > All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse. And what I'm saying is that publishing everything as long as it's true, is not abuse, it's the actual goal.
        ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        I don't think we're going to ever be speaking on the same plane of reason in this conversation.
  - 10y ago