4 ms·

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't see the connection with what I was saying? WL publically criticized the decision to not release all of the Panama Pa

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't see the connection with what I was saying? WL publically criticized the decision to not release all of the Panama Paper's details so based on that, I think they would have released more of the information.

mirimir 10y ago
My point is just that perhaps Wikileaks has released less about Russia because less has been leaked to them about Russia. I mentioned the Panama Papers because there's a lot about Putin etc there. Also, if someone had provided stuff about Russia to Wikileaks, and they sat on it, why wouldn't the leaker use some other channel? They'd have another thing to leak about.
- marmot777 10y ago
  I'd accept this as plausible if it were merely "less" and if it weren't combined with at least the appearance of collusion with Russia. The DNC timing and staggering of the releases were so obviously political and not about openness. By the way, are there people here who downvote things just because they disagree? I had a comment downvoted to -1. It's the one that you replied to originally above. What's wrong with my comment other than a lot of people think I'm wrong?
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Hey, I upvoted your comment because it furthered discussion :) Russia has been cultivating opposition to US hegemony since the falling out after WWII. Back in the day, it was leftists. But since the 80s, they've focused more on libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, conspiracy theorists, etc. Look at RT, for example, and who its fans are. So yes, Assange and associates roughed out Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet (2012) on his RT show, "World Tomorrow". The goal is "independence from the security guards of the world". For better or worse, that's pretty much the US. Bottom line, I think that it's an enemy of my enemy relationship. I can't imagine that he'd deny that Russia is a kleptocratic horrorshow. Also, he clearly has a personal grudge against Ms. Clinton.
    - marmot777 10y ago
      Thanks. Good points, all. I've not heard this theory before but it makes sense. I'd say that's exactly how Assange views the situation. But the fact we are even discussing Assange's psychological makeup and his "views" and who he hates and who he's aligned with against a common enemy are enough to disqualify him for the position he and his organization have claimed. He's not and WL is not a neutral arbiter of openness, he's an anti-U.S. propaganda tool. If freedom from the world's security guards means the rise of the world's petty thugs, then I'd say he's made a deal with the devil. I've not read the above document but is it accepted that it's the real deal? Given that and the massive amount of evidence, WL is not neutral and is not about openness why do people still cling to this absurd position? I liken it to those who still claim the earth is flat because it looks flat from from here so it must be flat.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        Probably the core cypherpunk value is the right to privacy. That might seem funny, given Wikileaks. But there's the argument that right to privacy is inversely proportional to power. So governments should have no privacy. But anyway, do read the book. You might also enjoy Of Captain Mission by Daniel Defoe.[0,1] It's rather the grandfather of laissez faire. 0) http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=7779 http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?n... 1) http://www.fullbooks.com/Of-Captain-Mission.html http://www.fullbooks.com/Of-Captain-Mission.html
    - marmot777 10y ago
      Jesus, he also has an RT show? I somehow didn't catch that but read it as a document, not a show. He's so possessed by his ideology he can't think clearly. He's yet to learn that ALL ideologies are bullshit even his. I guess I will go look on youtube but I'm pretty sure it's cringeworthy to watch this jackass on RT.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        He had a talk show on RT in 2012.
- marmot777 10y ago
  I somehow missed the bit about the Panama Papers having a lot about Putin in there. That makes me question my original assertion that WL would have released more. As you said, it's impossible to know. Let history be our guide. Has WL released anything substantially damaging to Russia? Are things about how rich and corrupt Putin is considered damaging and would Russian State media give it any play regardless? It'd play big internationally but in Russia I wonder if the public would even hear about it...

mirimir 10y ago

My point is just that perhaps Wikileaks has released less about Russia because less has been leaked to them about Russia. I mentioned the Panama Papers because there's a lot about Putin etc there. Also, if someone had provided stuff about Russia to Wikileaks, and they sat on it, why wouldn't the leaker use some other channel? They'd have another thing to leak about.

marmot777 10y ago
I'd accept this as plausible if it were merely "less" and if it weren't combined with at least the appearance of collusion with Russia. The DNC timing and staggering of the releases were so obviously political and not about openness. By the way, are there people here who downvote things just because they disagree? I had a comment downvoted to -1. It's the one that you replied to originally above. What's wrong with my comment other than a lot of people think I'm wrong?
- mirimir 10y ago
  Hey, I upvoted your comment because it furthered discussion :) Russia has been cultivating opposition to US hegemony since the falling out after WWII. Back in the day, it was leftists. But since the 80s, they've focused more on libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, conspiracy theorists, etc. Look at RT, for example, and who its fans are. So yes, Assange and associates roughed out Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet (2012) on his RT show, "World Tomorrow". The goal is "independence from the security guards of the world". For better or worse, that's pretty much the US. Bottom line, I think that it's an enemy of my enemy relationship. I can't imagine that he'd deny that Russia is a kleptocratic horrorshow. Also, he clearly has a personal grudge against Ms. Clinton.
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Thanks. Good points, all. I've not heard this theory before but it makes sense. I'd say that's exactly how Assange views the situation. But the fact we are even discussing Assange's psychological makeup and his "views" and who he hates and who he's aligned with against a common enemy are enough to disqualify him for the position he and his organization have claimed. He's not and WL is not a neutral arbiter of openness, he's an anti-U.S. propaganda tool. If freedom from the world's security guards means the rise of the world's petty thugs, then I'd say he's made a deal with the devil. I've not read the above document but is it accepted that it's the real deal? Given that and the massive amount of evidence, WL is not neutral and is not about openness why do people still cling to this absurd position? I liken it to those who still claim the earth is flat because it looks flat from from here so it must be flat.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Probably the core cypherpunk value is the right to privacy. That might seem funny, given Wikileaks. But there's the argument that right to privacy is inversely proportional to power. So governments should have no privacy. But anyway, do read the book. You might also enjoy Of Captain Mission by Daniel Defoe.[0,1] It's rather the grandfather of laissez faire. 0) http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=7779 http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?n... 1) http://www.fullbooks.com/Of-Captain-Mission.html http://www.fullbooks.com/Of-Captain-Mission.html
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Jesus, he also has an RT show? I somehow didn't catch that but read it as a document, not a show. He's so possessed by his ideology he can't think clearly. He's yet to learn that ALL ideologies are bullshit even his. I guess I will go look on youtube but I'm pretty sure it's cringeworthy to watch this jackass on RT.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      He had a talk show on RT in 2012.
marmot777 10y ago
I somehow missed the bit about the Panama Papers having a lot about Putin in there. That makes me question my original assertion that WL would have released more. As you said, it's impossible to know. Let history be our guide. Has WL released anything substantially damaging to Russia? Are things about how rich and corrupt Putin is considered damaging and would Russian State media give it any play regardless? It'd play big internationally but in Russia I wonder if the public would even hear about it...