5 ms·

You are saying we should ignore the abuses of our ruling power because some foreign ruling power is rumored to expose them? I don't want to live in fascism jus

You are saying we should ignore the abuses of our ruling power because some foreign ruling power is rumored to expose them? I don't want to live in fascism just so the communists don't win, that doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff.

forrestbrazeal 10y ago
I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that WikiLeaks' guiding philosophy as espoused in this article seems almost willfully naive.
- admax88q 10y ago
  What would you propose they do? Not leak documents based upon who the source is? If the documents are authentic, why does it matter who the source was? If A leaks documents on B revealing corruption about B, just because A's motives may not be pure, doesn't make B any less corrupt.
  - forrestbrazeal 10y ago
    "Authentic" does not always equal "worth publishing", of course. I have no problem with them publishing stuff that's legitimately concerning. But a lot of the Clinton leaks (and I'm no Clinton fan) seemed to me like little more than doxxing, in the full knowledge that the emails would pick up a tinge of scandal by association simply because they showed up on WikiLeaks.
  - mcphage 10y ago
    Well, they could have released them all at once, rather in daily drips and drabs in an effort to make it look like there was more newsworthy information than there actually was.
  - mehwoot 10y ago
    What would you propose they do? Not leak documents based upon who the source is? Actually as far as I remember, this has always been part of their method of operation from the beginning, and they explicitly state this: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784873305463459841 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784873305463459841. They are more than just someone who releases whatever is given to them- they attempt to vet the information and publicise it as well. Which are functions that probably should be done, but it's very hard to appear impartial when you do that...
    - admax88q 10y ago
      Yes they vet the information, but if the information is true, then they publish it, regardless of who the source was. Vetting the information does not necessarily mean vetting the source.
mehwoot 10y ago
I don't want to live in fascism Right, I forgot exposing Hillary's emails prevented the rise of fascism.
- revelation 10y ago
  As much as it supported communism. No worries, you can read up on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion

forrestbrazeal 10y ago

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that WikiLeaks' guiding philosophy as espoused in this article seems almost willfully naive.

admax88q 10y ago
What would you propose they do? Not leak documents based upon who the source is? If the documents are authentic, why does it matter who the source was? If A leaks documents on B revealing corruption about B, just because A's motives may not be pure, doesn't make B any less corrupt.
- forrestbrazeal 10y ago
  "Authentic" does not always equal "worth publishing", of course. I have no problem with them publishing stuff that's legitimately concerning. But a lot of the Clinton leaks (and I'm no Clinton fan) seemed to me like little more than doxxing, in the full knowledge that the emails would pick up a tinge of scandal by association simply because they showed up on WikiLeaks.
- mcphage 10y ago
  Well, they could have released them all at once, rather in daily drips and drabs in an effort to make it look like there was more newsworthy information than there actually was.
- mehwoot 10y ago
  What would you propose they do? Not leak documents based upon who the source is? Actually as far as I remember, this has always been part of their method of operation from the beginning, and they explicitly state this: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784873305463459841 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784873305463459841. They are more than just someone who releases whatever is given to them- they attempt to vet the information and publicise it as well. Which are functions that probably should be done, but it's very hard to appear impartial when you do that...
  - admax88q 10y ago
    Yes they vet the information, but if the information is true, then they publish it, regardless of who the source was. Vetting the information does not necessarily mean vetting the source.

mehwoot 10y ago

I don't want to live in fascism Right, I forgot exposing Hillary's emails prevented the rise of fascism.

revelation 10y ago
As much as it supported communism. No worries, you can read up on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion