4 ms·

WikiLeaks publishes what they get, if it is authentic, if it wasnt yet published elsewhere and if they find it historically significant. They cant really choose

WikiLeaks publishes what they get, if it is authentic, if it wasnt yet published elsewhere and if they find it historically significant. They cant really choose what to publish, since in case they would try to censor some leaker, he can easily leak via some other channel and accuse WikiLeaks of being biased and not publishing his leaks. Would you like them more if they would publish what they get, unless it somehow hurts American institutions? Why should WikiLeaks protect only US? They arent US organization, Assange is Australian, most staffers are European based. Your arguments sounds like it came from somebody who would say, that leaked DNC and Podesta emails should not be read, because they can hurt DNC campaign. I advise you to start advocating for big American firewall, something like China has, so you can protect US citizens from all information that might open their eyes but hurt some officials. It very important that these tools are published, so software companies can patch their software and people are able to protect themselves. Not everyone is US citizen. Rest of the world greets any leaks from intelligence agencies from any country. If you dont want, dont update your OS and security software, the rest of the world will.

anigbrowl 10y ago
WikiLeaks publishes what they get Maybe they do, but it's also within their power to withhold information or publish selectively. It seems a little odd that they only seem to get information that hurts the US and its allies, but never information that would create problems for other superpowers. Perhaps that's entirely coincidental but then again perhaps it's not. I support Wikileaks' existence but don't take their claims at face value and question whether they are really the disinterested actors they claim to be.
- kbenson 10y ago
  An important consideration is that if Wikileaks publishing criteria is as simple as the GP asserts, it's easy for them to be used by third parties to push an agenda. If, for example, Russia was behind a lot of the information leaked, then Wikileaks is the possibly unwitting mouthpiece of the Russian state, and are in fact laundering the information to present it without context. In both cases you find out about tools the U.S. intelligence apparatus uses for espionage, or about DNC emails, but if you know that comes from a foreign government, that is an important piece of context that's being lost. Normally, that government would be forced to either release it anonymously, or through a fictitious online identify, or as themselves. Having Wikileaks injected into the chain of custody changes the context it's perceived in.

anigbrowl 10y ago

WikiLeaks publishes what they get Maybe they do, but it's also within their power to withhold information or publish selectively. It seems a little odd that they only seem to get information that hurts the US and its allies, but never information that would create problems for other superpowers. Perhaps that's entirely coincidental but then again perhaps it's not. I support Wikileaks' existence but don't take their claims at face value and question whether they are really the disinterested actors they claim to be.

kbenson 10y ago
An important consideration is that if Wikileaks publishing criteria is as simple as the GP asserts, it's easy for them to be used by third parties to push an agenda. If, for example, Russia was behind a lot of the information leaked, then Wikileaks is the possibly unwitting mouthpiece of the Russian state, and are in fact laundering the information to present it without context. In both cases you find out about tools the U.S. intelligence apparatus uses for espionage, or about DNC emails, but if you know that comes from a foreign government, that is an important piece of context that's being lost. Normally, that government would be forced to either release it anonymously, or through a fictitious online identify, or as themselves. Having Wikileaks injected into the chain of custody changes the context it's perceived in.