3 ms·
"Assange" the person may not be trustworthy, but Wikileaks the organization he created is, so far, beyond reproach. They have never released false data.
by Karunamon 10y ago
"Assange" the person may not be trustworthy, but Wikileaks the organization he created is, so far, beyond reproach. They have never released false data.
- jessaustin 10y agoYet every time there's a significant release, politics-as-team-sport morons conclude that since their team has been shown in a bad light, it's all a pack of lies. This is how the media can lead us around by the noses: our memories rarely span the last week.
- pvg 10y ago'not releasing false data' doesn't make you beyond reproach. That's like saying some doxxer is beyond reproach because they never got someone's address wrong.
- Karunamon 10y agoGiven that Wikileaks entire MO is releasing private information...
- pvg 10y agoFinish the thought. Or start it with 'Given that Wikileaks released identifying info on every voter in Turkey...'.
- Karunamon 10y agoApparently "beyond reproach" was the wrong wording above, but now I'm unable to edit it. That said, given how often "trustworthiness" is used as a mental shortcut for "believing anything they publish", it's still a knee-jerk worth fighting against. None of Wikileaks' released documents in their history have proven to be false, and so they are still reliable as a source.
- pvg 10y agoNo argument there. But the response is typically not to what they publish, it's to the combination of the data and their added spin. It's not 'video from an already widely reported incident' it's 'Collateral murder'. And onwards.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoYou can mislead and shape narrative with editorialized releases. It's the goal of most propaganda efforts to only use true statements. I find it troubling that people conclude they're "beyond reproach" just because the facts are true. That doesn't make them non-biased, mean they're not intending to distract or mislead, say anything about their framing, analysis, or editorial content, etc. Like here: a suspiciously timed leak of sensitive US documents which largely seem to be intended to scare and distract, not show legitimate wrong-doing.
- Karunamon 10y agoMisleading implies falsehood of some sort, but they're releasing the actual paperwork absent anything other than an introductory statement about the collection of as a whole, which does not equate to "framing, analysis, or editorial content" in my mind. Negligence counts as wrong-doing to me. The leaks prove that the CIA has lost control of their malware cache. And on the positive side, it gives the affected parties the means to patch their code.