5 ms·
If you're throwaway, what harm is there in naming who you told, at least the publication. Will that yield too much info? There is wikileaks and him, Glenn Gree
by noobermin 10y ago
If you're throwaway, what harm is there in naming who you told, at least the publication. Will that yield too much info?
There is wikileaks and him, Glenn Greenwald, who at least to us seem to be fair (dare I say honest?) journalists.
- jackmott 10y agoWikileaks who campaigned to make trump a president? The world has gone crazy.
- fixxer 10y agoCampaigned? I think you meant "published leaked documents without taking a side", but whatever, keep on pretending HRC wasnt just a more presentable version of vile.
- fffffffooop 10y agoIf you read WikiLeaks' Twitter posts from September and October, you'll see that they definitely took a side in the election.
- uiri 10y agoI think your point would be stronger if your comment included a few links to the tweets in question.
- fffffffooop 10y agoTwitter's mobile interface really isn't made for looking at tweets from months ago. If I accidentally tap on a tweet and click back, I'm brought back to today's tweets. Here's a blog post where Assange days Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President: https://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/ https://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/
- fffffffooop 10y agoI can't manage to copy links to individual posts without losing my place in the timeline, but there were a number of retweets of non-WikiLeaks related posts about Clinton. They also retweeted this tweet from when Clinton appeared with Pussy Riot in 2014: https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/452130729691201536 https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/45213072969... There's nothing wrong with WikiLeaks supporting a candidate in the election. I do think it's wrong to pretend they're neutral or unbiased.