3 ms·

Which of their actions are so obviously pro-Russia? I can think of some that are pro-Russia in the sense that they are attacking Russia's opponents but those ta

by dvogel 10y ago

Which of their actions are so obviously pro-Russia? I can think of some that are pro-Russia in the sense that they are attacking Russia's opponents but those targets are opposed by others as well, making the conclusion less clear. The most well-known example: is helping Snowden seek asylum pro-Russia or anti-USA? The fact that they were seeking asylum in more than Russia, it seems more anti-USA.

abritinthebay 10y ago
To be clear: I'm not saying it's a deliberate pro-Russian policy - I can see how that might have been implied - but it's undeniable that a large number of their actions benefit Russian interests. Maybe they are unwitting pawns, or just useful fools, but that it's serving those goals is rather obvious.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  You seem to be saying that if leaks benefit Russian policy, the bearer of those leaks is a pawn or a useful idiot. If legit information benefits someone, it doesn't make that information tainted or the bearer of that information biased or a pawn. I don't care whose interests the truth benefits. We all deserve to know the truth regardless of whom it benefits.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    Not at all. When it's a consistent pattern of leaks that are released and misrepresented (for whatever purpose) that benefit one party... ... well then they are either a tool or a fool. This is Wikileaks now: either in the pocket, or foolish enabler, of Russian interests. They could be either, but they are one of them.
    - gnarbarian 10y ago
      Nuance is impossible on twitter, so I afford them some lack of brevity in that medium. But beyond that I haven't noticed them editorialize. They release the docs and people can look at them to come to their own conclusions. Can you show me any examples where they "... continually misrepresented, lied, and obfuscated the truth."
      - abritinthebay 10y ago
        Sure - basically everything around Clinton's position on DOMA was misrepresented. Almost everything about the supposed Colorado voter fraud was straight made up. Those are just two off the top of my head (I believe Snopes has a lot of detail about those two fwiw).
      - c3o 10y ago
        The brevity of Twitter is not at fault. The whole purpose of their account there seems to be to editorialize the leaks. It's clearly more than just an announcement channel of new releases for people "to come to their own conclusions". They tweet conclusions supported, sometimes incorrectly, with links.

by dvogel 10y ago

abritinthebay 10y ago

To be clear: I'm not saying it's a deliberate pro-Russian policy - I can see how that might have been implied - but it's undeniable that a large number of their actions benefit Russian interests. Maybe they are unwitting pawns, or just useful fools, but that it's serving those goals is rather obvious.

gnarbarian 10y ago
You seem to be saying that if leaks benefit Russian policy, the bearer of those leaks is a pawn or a useful idiot. If legit information benefits someone, it doesn't make that information tainted or the bearer of that information biased or a pawn. I don't care whose interests the truth benefits. We all deserve to know the truth regardless of whom it benefits.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  Not at all. When it's a consistent pattern of leaks that are released and misrepresented (for whatever purpose) that benefit one party... ... well then they are either a tool or a fool. This is Wikileaks now: either in the pocket, or foolish enabler, of Russian interests. They could be either, but they are one of them.
  - gnarbarian 10y ago
    Nuance is impossible on twitter, so I afford them some lack of brevity in that medium. But beyond that I haven't noticed them editorialize. They release the docs and people can look at them to come to their own conclusions. Can you show me any examples where they "... continually misrepresented, lied, and obfuscated the truth."
    - abritinthebay 10y ago
      Sure - basically everything around Clinton's position on DOMA was misrepresented. Almost everything about the supposed Colorado voter fraud was straight made up. Those are just two off the top of my head (I believe Snopes has a lot of detail about those two fwiw).
    - c3o 10y ago
      The brevity of Twitter is not at fault. The whole purpose of their account there seems to be to editorialize the leaks. It's clearly more than just an announcement channel of new releases for people "to come to their own conclusions". They tweet conclusions supported, sometimes incorrectly, with links.