3 ms·

I believe strongly in transparency as a way to prevent corruption, but spreading misinformation doesn't stop corruption, it furthers it. It doesn't 'shine a lig

I believe strongly in transparency as a way to prevent corruption, but spreading misinformation doesn't stop corruption, it furthers it. It doesn't 'shine a light', it creates shadows where a brutal dictator can hide while he hurts others. Look up "useful idiots" to understand the role they played. It's too easy to cite principle such as "transparency" in order to ignore the difficult questions of responsibility and consequences. If Wikileaks wants to help the world and 'shine a light' - well that sounds like what journalists do; why shouldn't Wikileaks also verify and corroborate information before giving it to the public? Why would I trust any of the information if they don't? In a way, Wikileaks is the epitome of the propaganda and fake online news that influenced the U.S. campaign.

forrestbrazeal 10y ago
The linked article claims that WikiLeaks does "research, validate and contextualize the submissions we receive". Of course, this process is conducted with an odd lack of transparency.
seabass 10y ago
To be fair, they have a better track record than most media outlets. They don't trust the information at face value until, according to them at least, it has been verified. What that verification process is I have no idea, but so far it does appear to be working. I might just be out of the loop, though, so if that is the case what misinformation have they spread?
- hackuser 10y ago
  I've never heard of them verifying the information. They said they didn't even know where it came from. I doubt the DNC helped verify the emails. > what misinformation have they spread? Russian intelligence provided them with the data. I think we can assume it wasn't the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. EDIT: You are correct that I can't prove that it's misinformation. However, that is a normal part of a sophisticated misinformation campaign - that its targets can't discern real info from misinfo. It doesn't make my assertion correct but the absence of proof hardly makes it unlikely.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    Uh, the emails were verified as unaltered via DKIM signatures. Once Wikileaks did this all the talk of doctoring vanished, but you appear not to have realized this.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      That's not what I saw, I followed the issue closely and hardly saw anyone bring up that it was a likely misinformation campaign. But please let's discuss here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12990832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12990832
grandalf 10y ago
> Wikileaks is the epitome of the propaganda and fake online news that influenced the U.S. campaign Did you notice that Wikileaks showed via DKIM signatures that the vast majority of the emails were cryptographically proven to be unaltered. After that the notion that the emails were doctored vanished.
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
  TIL about DKIM signatures. Thanks!
- hackuser 10y ago
  Please see my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12984303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12984303
ovibos 10y ago
Wikileaks are not "spreading misinformation", they verify everything that they get before they leak it. This is why people take what they leak so seriously - any jackass with an internet connection can spread information, but wikileaks has a reputation for thouroughly vetting the information they recieve.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > why people take what they leak so seriously - any jackass with an internet connection can spread information, but wikileaks has a reputation for thouroughly vetting the information they recieve. I haven't heard of them having a reputation for verifying of vetting their information. Among a large number of people, I think their reputation is that of the quadruped you referenced.
ErikVandeWater 10y ago
Wikileaks does not want to have editorial control over what they see as relevant or important, and what they see as irrelevant. This is good because journalists are the ones that should be responsible for "verify[ing] and corroborat[ing] information" before presenting it to the public. You can go to many different news sites and see many different editorial perspectives on what of the Wikileaks leaks are important. This way the consumer of information can avoid the inherent weakness that only one editorial perspective would provide.
xnull2guest 10y ago
I would characterize US media as the most prevalent source of misinformation for Americans. From the outright lies, blatant propaganda and media manipulation that dragged America into the Iraq War, to the despicably hallow coverage of the Syrian proxy war with context like the genocide in Bahrain completely whitewashed, all the way to silly equivocations like "Trump and Putin are best friends" or "Putin got a boobjob." The US media bubble exists to satisfy it's customers, which are NOT it's consumers. These media organizations are paid to bring stories, ideas and perspectives - in the form of media narrative - to audiences. The GAO has indicated that the US is a huge buyer in this regard spending billions in advertising and PR (a huge component of the entire international industry). Wikileaks is (was?) a credible voice that didn't editorialize. It refused to partially edit collections of documents, disclosing them in full. When we got a bunch of nonsense from the media about the SONY hacks, Wikileaks backed up the US government take that the attack was from North Korea by connecting the attack to US propaganda operations involving themselves in the filmaking process, and evaluating how to direct the film in a way that might destabilize the country (efforts that of course failed). Similarly, much of the news reporting on Wikileaks by some of its compeditors has been filled with nonsense and unattributed rumors about Assange and it's teams of lawyers. Media outlets rarely (never) provide the context that the HB Gary Federal leaks implicated the US in plans to disturb the quality of reporting out of Wikileaks to discredit it, in retaliation for disclosing US diplomatic cables that did a huge amount of damage to the US reputation (for having been duplicitous in countless ways with the public and with allies diplomats). I feel as though there is a vacuum that will be created if Assange is killed and/or Wikileaks dismantled by intelligence. A vacuum for a peek behind the curtain of pro-government narrative that US National Security spends so much treasure making ubiquidous. A loss of Wikileaks may very well lead to a series of replacements (many of them garunteed to be various intelligence agencies) and therefore more leaks, until the militaries of various countries can more totally solve the problem of information control in the new internet medium.
- hackuser 10y ago
  That's an interesting story, but it's not my experience and I see little to substantiate it. Certainly all media organizations have real flaws and make serious errors, but that is true of all human institutions (name an exception!). Wikileaks is no exception either. But there are large differences of degree. I feel like you describe the ideal of Wikileaks but not the reality. Transparency is a great ideal, but everything is a bad idea in the extreme - Wikileaks shouldn't publish information that puts lives at risk, for example, or helps the political ends of clearly bad people (and I know sometimes it's hard to draw the line between bad and good, but not always). The reality is that they were Useful Idiots (the technical term, not an insult) for Russian intelligence, and appear to have their own biases and vendettas.

forrestbrazeal 10y ago

The linked article claims that WikiLeaks does "research, validate and contextualize the submissions we receive". Of course, this process is conducted with an odd lack of transparency.

seabass 10y ago

To be fair, they have a better track record than most media outlets. They don't trust the information at face value until, according to them at least, it has been verified. What that verification process is I have no idea, but so far it does appear to be working. I might just be out of the loop, though, so if that is the case what misinformation have they spread?

hackuser 10y ago
I've never heard of them verifying the information. They said they didn't even know where it came from. I doubt the DNC helped verify the emails. > what misinformation have they spread? Russian intelligence provided them with the data. I think we can assume it wasn't the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. EDIT: You are correct that I can't prove that it's misinformation. However, that is a normal part of a sophisticated misinformation campaign - that its targets can't discern real info from misinfo. It doesn't make my assertion correct but the absence of proof hardly makes it unlikely.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Uh, the emails were verified as unaltered via DKIM signatures. Once Wikileaks did this all the talk of doctoring vanished, but you appear not to have realized this.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    That's not what I saw, I followed the issue closely and hardly saw anyone bring up that it was a likely misinformation campaign. But please let's discuss here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12990832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12990832

grandalf 10y ago

> Wikileaks is the epitome of the propaganda and fake online news that influenced the U.S. campaign Did you notice that Wikileaks showed via DKIM signatures that the vast majority of the emails were cryptographically proven to be unaltered. After that the notion that the emails were doctored vanished.

MaulingMonkey 10y ago
TIL about DKIM signatures. Thanks!
hackuser 10y ago
Please see my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12984303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12984303

ovibos 10y ago

Wikileaks are not "spreading misinformation", they verify everything that they get before they leak it. This is why people take what they leak so seriously - any jackass with an internet connection can spread information, but wikileaks has a reputation for thouroughly vetting the information they recieve.

hackuser 10y ago
> why people take what they leak so seriously - any jackass with an internet connection can spread information, but wikileaks has a reputation for thouroughly vetting the information they recieve. I haven't heard of them having a reputation for verifying of vetting their information. Among a large number of people, I think their reputation is that of the quadruped you referenced.

ErikVandeWater 10y ago

Wikileaks does not want to have editorial control over what they see as relevant or important, and what they see as irrelevant. This is good because journalists are the ones that should be responsible for "verify[ing] and corroborat[ing] information" before presenting it to the public. You can go to many different news sites and see many different editorial perspectives on what of the Wikileaks leaks are important. This way the consumer of information can avoid the inherent weakness that only one editorial perspective would provide.

xnull2guest 10y ago

I would characterize US media as the most prevalent source of misinformation for Americans. From the outright lies, blatant propaganda and media manipulation that dragged America into the Iraq War, to the despicably hallow coverage of the Syrian proxy war with context like the genocide in Bahrain completely whitewashed, all the way to silly equivocations like "Trump and Putin are best friends" or "Putin got a boobjob." The US media bubble exists to satisfy it's customers, which are NOT it's consumers. These media organizations are paid to bring stories, ideas and perspectives - in the form of media narrative - to audiences. The GAO has indicated that the US is a huge buyer in this regard spending billions in advertising and PR (a huge component of the entire international industry). Wikileaks is (was?) a credible voice that didn't editorialize. It refused to partially edit collections of documents, disclosing them in full. When we got a bunch of nonsense from the media about the SONY hacks, Wikileaks backed up the US government take that the attack was from North Korea by connecting the attack to US propaganda operations involving themselves in the filmaking process, and evaluating how to direct the film in a way that might destabilize the country (efforts that of course failed). Similarly, much of the news reporting on Wikileaks by some of its compeditors has been filled with nonsense and unattributed rumors about Assange and it's teams of lawyers. Media outlets rarely (never) provide the context that the HB Gary Federal leaks implicated the US in plans to disturb the quality of reporting out of Wikileaks to discredit it, in retaliation for disclosing US diplomatic cables that did a huge amount of damage to the US reputation (for having been duplicitous in countless ways with the public and with allies diplomats). I feel as though there is a vacuum that will be created if Assange is killed and/or Wikileaks dismantled by intelligence. A vacuum for a peek behind the curtain of pro-government narrative that US National Security spends so much treasure making ubiquidous. A loss of Wikileaks may very well lead to a series of replacements (many of them garunteed to be various intelligence agencies) and therefore more leaks, until the militaries of various countries can more totally solve the problem of information control in the new internet medium.

hackuser 10y ago
That's an interesting story, but it's not my experience and I see little to substantiate it. Certainly all media organizations have real flaws and make serious errors, but that is true of all human institutions (name an exception!). Wikileaks is no exception either. But there are large differences of degree. I feel like you describe the ideal of Wikileaks but not the reality. Transparency is a great ideal, but everything is a bad idea in the extreme - Wikileaks shouldn't publish information that puts lives at risk, for example, or helps the political ends of clearly bad people (and I know sometimes it's hard to draw the line between bad and good, but not always). The reality is that they were Useful Idiots (the technical term, not an insult) for Russian intelligence, and appear to have their own biases and vendettas.