3 ms·

I understand your point. Mine is bias does not matter when it comes to this stuff. As long as the leak is factually accurate (and it seems like Wikileaks mostly

I understand your point. Mine is bias does not matter when it comes to this stuff. As long as the leak is factually accurate (and it seems like Wikileaks mostly jump dump the data they get) I want to know if a government is doing something shady and I don't care whether information is also getting leaked at the same rate about another government. Maybe they're not doing anything shady, or maybe they're just doing a better job with information security. Either way it doesn't take away from the fact I should know the information I can as long as it's factual. As an analogy when the US/UK/other western gov criticises Assad or Kim Jong Un over human rights abuses we don't generally complain that it's unfair because the US/UK also have plenty of human rights abuses under their belt. Yes that's a problem but it doesn't take away from the original complaint which is still valid.

dredmorbius 10y ago
If Wikileaks tells me the sky is blue, I'd be inclined to believe them. But I'd wonder who wants me to know that, and why. Wikileaks is a spotlight. It shines brightly, and exposes much, but only where it shines. And if I notice that it's shining only in specific places ... well, that's a curious fact in itself. And I absolutely disagree with you that bias doesn't matter. Ultimately it's the only thing that matters. Much as, say, US print and broadcast news was conspicuously silent on matters concerning advertiser interests, or government interests in contexts in which the government had leverage over the press. Wikileaks themselves are no different in that regard, though the business model and relationships are slighly rearranged.