5 ms·

By complaining about WaPo, et al, you are guilty of "whataboutism" yourself. Is the standard so low that we can't even mention that a non profit(?) organizatio

By complaining about WaPo, et al, you are guilty of "whataboutism" yourself. Is the standard so low that we can't even mention that a non profit(?) organization devoted to releasing leaks of wrongdoing shouldn't be blatantly partisan? Edit: I misread the last part of your comment about "whataboutism". Yet my question still applies, isn't it?

Natsu 10y ago
The claims of partisanship rely on claims that Wikileaks somehow selects their sources. They are not a hacking organization and they do not go choosing targets to hack for the leaks, so they cannot be selective in the same way that, for example, the NYT chooses openly to be. I have yet to see anyone even claim that Wikileaks participates in the hacks themselves, let alone to provide evidence thereof.
- sanswork 10y ago
  The claims of partisanship rely on Wikileaks own claims to have information that they aren't releasing. Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing.
  - yorwba 10y ago
    > Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing. Could you point me to a source for that?
    - sanswork 10y ago
      http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345...
      - yorwba 10y ago
        I was expecting something more damning. But I guess they could have published the info, and the reason they didn't is not very convincing. It suggests they are more after the publicity than after a reputation of publishing anything and everything.
        Natsu 10y ago
        From the description, it sounds like they got that opposition research doc that every other media organization had and which most of them said they didn't publish because they weren't able to validate it.
        sanswork 10y ago
        What from the description do you think described that document?
        Natsu 10y ago
        > "it’s a variety of documents from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles, some quite interesting, some even entertaining" The fact that it was 'associated with the election campaign' and 'entertaining' made me feel it was there. I don't remember seeing other docs that satisfied both criteria, but it is only a guess and I could be wrong.
        sanswork 10y ago
        Thanks for that I actually missed his description of them and only saw where he said they were less interesting than what Trump was saying himself.
nebabyte 10y ago
And why not? What separates them from the many non-profit(?) organizations which are partisan? "Don't do X, it's bad for The Party" is frankly far more cancerous for the process than any truths getting revealed. The weaknesses are there either way, but highlighting them and tearing away at them would (should) lead the way for stronger parties (in the sense of fewer weaknesses to exploit; better control over the leadership by the constituents, and so on) to evolve. But no - it's not enough that the public be sold on the idea of "only two flavors" when it 'matters', but we have to let the weak, flaw-riddled leaders of those parties limp on even if they're completely alienated from its base, because we can't risk 'not towing the party line.' Apathy for that exact kind of 'suck it up' logic is (in my opinion, anyways) one of the hugely deciding factors in the numbers that abstained from the election this time. Frankly, organizations like WIkileaks should be doing more to tear away at existing parties and partisanship - for disillusioned voters, that'd actually be restoring faith in the system.

Natsu 10y ago

The claims of partisanship rely on claims that Wikileaks somehow selects their sources. They are not a hacking organization and they do not go choosing targets to hack for the leaks, so they cannot be selective in the same way that, for example, the NYT chooses openly to be. I have yet to see anyone even claim that Wikileaks participates in the hacks themselves, let alone to provide evidence thereof.

sanswork 10y ago
The claims of partisanship rely on Wikileaks own claims to have information that they aren't releasing. Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing.
- yorwba 10y ago
  > Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing. Could you point me to a source for that?
  - sanswork 10y ago
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345...
    - yorwba 10y ago
      I was expecting something more damning. But I guess they could have published the info, and the reason they didn't is not very convincing. It suggests they are more after the publicity than after a reputation of publishing anything and everything.
      - Natsu 10y ago
        From the description, it sounds like they got that opposition research doc that every other media organization had and which most of them said they didn't publish because they weren't able to validate it.
        sanswork 10y ago
        What from the description do you think described that document?
        Natsu 10y ago
        > "it’s a variety of documents from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles, some quite interesting, some even entertaining" The fact that it was 'associated with the election campaign' and 'entertaining' made me feel it was there. I don't remember seeing other docs that satisfied both criteria, but it is only a guess and I could be wrong.
        sanswork 10y ago
        Thanks for that I actually missed his description of them and only saw where he said they were less interesting than what Trump was saying himself.

nebabyte 10y ago

And why not? What separates them from the many non-profit(?) organizations which are partisan? "Don't do X, it's bad for The Party" is frankly far more cancerous for the process than any truths getting revealed. The weaknesses are there either way, but highlighting them and tearing away at them would (should) lead the way for stronger parties (in the sense of fewer weaknesses to exploit; better control over the leadership by the constituents, and so on) to evolve. But no - it's not enough that the public be sold on the idea of "only two flavors" when it 'matters', but we have to let the weak, flaw-riddled leaders of those parties limp on even if they're completely alienated from its base, because we can't risk 'not towing the party line.' Apathy for that exact kind of 'suck it up' logic is (in my opinion, anyways) one of the hugely deciding factors in the numbers that abstained from the election this time. Frankly, organizations like WIkileaks should be doing more to tear away at existing parties and partisanship - for disillusioned voters, that'd actually be restoring faith in the system.