4 ms·
That's a pretty reductionist characterization of GP's point. IMO, they're not saying information shouldn't be used to effect political change in the abstract -
by gingerrr 10y ago
That's a pretty reductionist characterization of GP's point. IMO, they're not saying information shouldn't be used to effect political change in the abstract - but that it should be available when available, not when politically expedient.
The issue most critics seem to have in this thread and elsewhere with Wikileaks' actions aren't the leaks, but the timing just weeks before the election. I can't honestly say if that's agenda or just the timing in which they received the information, but if they sat on the info before releasing it, that definitely belies some specific political agenda rather than the broader and widely-supported goal of "information should be free".
- MK999 10y agoThey are releasing the information for maximum impact to achieve the political change no argument there. Why not use strategy and tactics?
- brador 10y agoPolitical change for whose benefit? mine? yours? theirs? secret paymaster? highest bidder?
- MK999 10y agoIsn't it the dream of the cypherpunks to fix government? I assume its according to their best judgment unless you think they're working for Mr. Putin or Mr. Trump
- gingerrr 10y agoYeah, that's a problem. Wikileaks purports itself as a nonpartisan idealistic "all information is free" organization and so far has been accepted as such because that mission is of a higher purpose than political gain. The type of "political change" they've pursued until now entirely rested on the pure fact of information being available, they did not seem to try for influencing a particular outcome in releasing the information beyond simply making it available. If they're now taking a stance as an organization that will strategically and judiciously release information to pursue a specific political goal, they've destroyed any credibility they once had as a free information exchange. I'm not sure how you don't see that.
- MK999 10y agoI don't agree with the premise that influencing the election is a bad thing. I don't agree that having one or more political goals is bad either. Everyone else influences the election with information, eg. well-timed release of Trump's lewd talk on the bus.