3 ms·
I hope they do address it, but they've been squirrelly about this topic in the past. If I had to speculate, it is a calculated decision on WL's part to try and
by cloakandswagger 10y ago
I hope they do address it, but they've been squirrelly about this topic in the past.
If I had to speculate, it is a calculated decision on WL's part to try and shift the organization's integrity away from Assange. Currently all trust in WL rests on Assange's existence which isn't good for the longevity of the org if/when he decides to retire (or meets his untimely demise).
- Bartweiss 10y agoThat would make some sense, yes. (And I don't much expect an answer either.) WL has certainly been in a weird spot over the last few years, with nowhere near the straightforward anti-establishment reputation they pulled off in their Collateral Murder days. Assange's charges and sanctuary issues, Snowden's failure to partner with WL, the Appelbaum revelations, bizarre arguably-anti-Semitic tweets, and a suddenly-bipartisan-and-effective effort to cast them as anti-American. I wouldn't be at all shocked if there's an attempt underway to quiet things down a bit and change focus. Without getting into the validity of any of the things pressing on them, there's certainly a lot of evidence that they're short on reputation and resources, and struggling to run successful PR, redact releases, etc. Moving away from Assange's centrality, and perhaps from the American focus, might give them some leeway to become a longer-term-player. Maybe.