5 ms·

Highly unpopular opinion, but Wikileaks is seeming more like an anti-western operation funded by Russia. The more they leak the more their bias is showing.

QuinnyPig 10y ago
It went from "fascinating" to "dear lord what game are they playing at" to "I can't even articulate what they are anymore" in a surprisingly short span of years. They're not even a real wiki!
draw_down 10y ago
Mmm, you might be surprised how popular that opinion is, particularly among American Democrats.
- jorblumesea 10y ago
  The bias is so obvious it's hard not to draw conclusions from their actions.
  - 1001101 10y ago
    Julian said this to Forbes in 2010: "It's not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I've learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I'm a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free. WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical." So, core principles: open information, ethical capitalism. His influences and associations with people like Noam Chomsky (ethical political economy), Gavin MacFayden (open information) and others, seem to reinforce this. I'm not sure that Russian oligarchy, and restrictions on press freedoms/speech etc. would really jive with Julian's worldview. He does seem to have a particular bone to pick with US imperialism, so I wouldn't rule out accepting help from the enemy of his enemy.
    - PerfectDlite 10y ago
      > WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical So somebody would imagine that he will publish Russian data as well, to make Russian capitalism more free and ethical...
      - zigzigzag 10y ago
        This comes up every time Wikileaks is mentioned, and it is ridiculous every time. Assange has stated, very clearly, that Russia is not the source and that if they had leaks related to Russia they'd publish them. But they don't. Probably because Wikileaks isn't necessary for Russian leakers: it arose because western newspapers were so reluctant to publish leaked material from western governments. But those same newspapers are desperate to publish anything that makes Russia look bad. So why go via Wikileaks, when you could go directly to the NY Times or the Guardian. The whole "Wikileaks = Russia" line just comes off as delusional. There's no evidence, it has been explicitly denied, and the supporting arguments are very weak.
        PerfectDlite 10y ago
        Sorry, your defensive arguments are very weak. Like "if they had leaks related to Russia they'd publish them. But they don't. Probably because Wikileaks isn't necessary for Russian leakers" - really?
        zigzigzag 10y ago
        What kind of an answer is that? Do you have evidence that they have leaks they're sitting on? If so, why would the leaker not just send their materials elsewhere? The point of Wikileaks is to publish, after all. You're arguing that they have lots of material they refuse to publish, and the people who provided that material oddly don't use other channels, yet you have no evidence.
        PerfectDlite 10y ago
        > The point of Wikileaks is to publish, after all. So how many anti-Putin materials were published there?
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  Not shocking, considering Wikileaks being anti-leaks when they affected Trump. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408
  - draw_down 10y ago
    Well, I certainly agree that it isn't shocking Democrats think Wikileaks is a front for Russia. Though I may disagree on the reason why it isn't shocking that they think that.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Why wouldn't it be? Its a completely rational take on this.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Wikileaks's stance can be easily explained by Assange's upbringing and personal history. He has made obvious anti-American imperialism public statements practically his entire life. He wouldn't need Russian direction to do what he does. He already is a true believer. From the Crowdstrike report and public statements by WL, Sputnik, and RT, it is likely that the Podesta email cache was delivered by Russian state actors. That there is circumstantial evidence of collusion on one campaign doesn't mean that Wikileaks is a Russian front. I think the most obvious explanation is the true one. Wikileaks is controlled by Assange, who really disagrees with U.S. foreign and military policy.
bounded 10y ago
Wikileaks got started around 2006, are you suggesting they were funded from the start or more recently? Any sources to back this up?
- daddyo 10y ago
  They were "fleecing" intelligence agencies from a very early stage. Here is old mailing list communication where Assange says as much (besides admitting they pull a lot of leaks when mob and intelligence agencies extract over Tor). Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 07:21:34 -0800 To: From: John Young The CIA would be the most likely $5M funder. Soros is suspected of being a conduit for black money to dissident groups racketeering for such payola. Now it may be that that is the intention of WL because its behavior so far fits the pattern. If fleecing the CIA is the purpose, I urge setting a much higher funding goal, in the $100M range and up. The US intel agencies are awash in funds they cannot spend fast enough to keep the Congressional spigot wide open. Academics, dissidents, companies, spy contractors, other nation’s spy agencies, whole countries, are falling over themselves to tap into this bountiful flood. But competition is fierce, and accusations of deception are raging even as the fleecers work in concert. Chinese dissidents — a brand name among many — are already reaping huge benefits from covert funding from the US and from the PRC, along with others in the former Soviets, in Africa and South America, inside the US, UK and Europe, in the Middle East and the Koreas, who know how to double-cross ditzy-rich Dads and Moms. In solidarity to fuck em all. To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> From: Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org> Subject: martha stuart pgp Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:20:25 -0500 —–BEGIN PGP MESSAGE—– Version: None J. We are going to fuck them all. Chinese mostly, but not entirely a feint. Invention abounds. Lies, twists and distorts everywhere needed for protection. Hackers monitor chinese and other intel as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we. Inxhaustible supply of material. Near 100,000 documents/emails a day. We’re going to crack the world open and let it flower into something new. If fleecing the CIA will assist us, then fleece we will. We have pullbacks from NED, CFR, Freedomhouse and other CIA teats. We have all of pre 2005 afghanistan. Almost all of india fed. Half a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political parties and consulates, worldbank, apec, UN sections, trade groups, tibet and fulan dafa associations and… russian phishing mafia who pull data everywhere. We’re drowing. We don’t even know a tenth of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped storing it at 1Tb.
SFJulie 10y ago
Well 2ble highly unpopular opinion: russians are a tad baked in a very passeist ideology that may make them do a good things while they have ill intentions. The data so far have been pretty checked, and pretty alarming on the actual state of democracy. To be honest it looks like NSA/CIA are now copying the worst of the KGB bad practices that made USSR being tagged dictature. Russians thinks democracy cannot reform themselves and it will lead to chaos as the truth about USSR made USSR crumble down by losing their allies in the western world. Is it sure? Let Russia spend money thinking they undermine democracies while actually helping them being stronger. Hell may be paved with good intentions and bad intentions may also results in good deeds. Anyway, when you have lived during cold war it is fun to see Russia and USA swap their place.

QuinnyPig 10y ago

It went from "fascinating" to "dear lord what game are they playing at" to "I can't even articulate what they are anymore" in a surprisingly short span of years. They're not even a real wiki!

draw_down 10y ago

Mmm, you might be surprised how popular that opinion is, particularly among American Democrats.

jorblumesea 10y ago
The bias is so obvious it's hard not to draw conclusions from their actions.
- 1001101 10y ago
  Julian said this to Forbes in 2010: "It's not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I've learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I'm a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free. WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical." So, core principles: open information, ethical capitalism. His influences and associations with people like Noam Chomsky (ethical political economy), Gavin MacFayden (open information) and others, seem to reinforce this. I'm not sure that Russian oligarchy, and restrictions on press freedoms/speech etc. would really jive with Julian's worldview. He does seem to have a particular bone to pick with US imperialism, so I wouldn't rule out accepting help from the enemy of his enemy.
  - PerfectDlite 10y ago
    > WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical So somebody would imagine that he will publish Russian data as well, to make Russian capitalism more free and ethical...
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      This comes up every time Wikileaks is mentioned, and it is ridiculous every time. Assange has stated, very clearly, that Russia is not the source and that if they had leaks related to Russia they'd publish them. But they don't. Probably because Wikileaks isn't necessary for Russian leakers: it arose because western newspapers were so reluctant to publish leaked material from western governments. But those same newspapers are desperate to publish anything that makes Russia look bad. So why go via Wikileaks, when you could go directly to the NY Times or the Guardian. The whole "Wikileaks = Russia" line just comes off as delusional. There's no evidence, it has been explicitly denied, and the supporting arguments are very weak.
      - PerfectDlite 10y ago
        Sorry, your defensive arguments are very weak. Like "if they had leaks related to Russia they'd publish them. But they don't. Probably because Wikileaks isn't necessary for Russian leakers" - really?
        zigzigzag 10y ago
        What kind of an answer is that? Do you have evidence that they have leaks they're sitting on? If so, why would the leaker not just send their materials elsewhere? The point of Wikileaks is to publish, after all. You're arguing that they have lots of material they refuse to publish, and the people who provided that material oddly don't use other channels, yet you have no evidence.
        PerfectDlite 10y ago
        > The point of Wikileaks is to publish, after all. So how many anti-Putin materials were published there?
ceejayoz 10y ago
Not shocking, considering Wikileaks being anti-leaks when they affected Trump. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408
- draw_down 10y ago
  Well, I certainly agree that it isn't shocking Democrats think Wikileaks is a front for Russia. Though I may disagree on the reason why it isn't shocking that they think that.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Why wouldn't it be? Its a completely rational take on this.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Wikileaks's stance can be easily explained by Assange's upbringing and personal history. He has made obvious anti-American imperialism public statements practically his entire life. He wouldn't need Russian direction to do what he does. He already is a true believer. From the Crowdstrike report and public statements by WL, Sputnik, and RT, it is likely that the Podesta email cache was delivered by Russian state actors. That there is circumstantial evidence of collusion on one campaign doesn't mean that Wikileaks is a Russian front. I think the most obvious explanation is the true one. Wikileaks is controlled by Assange, who really disagrees with U.S. foreign and military policy.

bounded 10y ago

Wikileaks got started around 2006, are you suggesting they were funded from the start or more recently? Any sources to back this up?

daddyo 10y ago
They were "fleecing" intelligence agencies from a very early stage. Here is old mailing list communication where Assange says as much (besides admitting they pull a lot of leaks when mob and intelligence agencies extract over Tor). Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 07:21:34 -0800 To: From: John Young The CIA would be the most likely $5M funder. Soros is suspected of being a conduit for black money to dissident groups racketeering for such payola. Now it may be that that is the intention of WL because its behavior so far fits the pattern. If fleecing the CIA is the purpose, I urge setting a much higher funding goal, in the $100M range and up. The US intel agencies are awash in funds they cannot spend fast enough to keep the Congressional spigot wide open. Academics, dissidents, companies, spy contractors, other nation’s spy agencies, whole countries, are falling over themselves to tap into this bountiful flood. But competition is fierce, and accusations of deception are raging even as the fleecers work in concert. Chinese dissidents — a brand name among many — are already reaping huge benefits from covert funding from the US and from the PRC, along with others in the former Soviets, in Africa and South America, inside the US, UK and Europe, in the Middle East and the Koreas, who know how to double-cross ditzy-rich Dads and Moms. In solidarity to fuck em all. To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> From: Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org> Subject: martha stuart pgp Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:20:25 -0500 —–BEGIN PGP MESSAGE—– Version: None J. We are going to fuck them all. Chinese mostly, but not entirely a feint. Invention abounds. Lies, twists and distorts everywhere needed for protection. Hackers monitor chinese and other intel as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we. Inxhaustible supply of material. Near 100,000 documents/emails a day. We’re going to crack the world open and let it flower into something new. If fleecing the CIA will assist us, then fleece we will. We have pullbacks from NED, CFR, Freedomhouse and other CIA teats. We have all of pre 2005 afghanistan. Almost all of india fed. Half a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political parties and consulates, worldbank, apec, UN sections, trade groups, tibet and fulan dafa associations and… russian phishing mafia who pull data everywhere. We’re drowing. We don’t even know a tenth of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped storing it at 1Tb.

SFJulie 10y ago

Well 2ble highly unpopular opinion: russians are a tad baked in a very passeist ideology that may make them do a good things while they have ill intentions. The data so far have been pretty checked, and pretty alarming on the actual state of democracy. To be honest it looks like NSA/CIA are now copying the worst of the KGB bad practices that made USSR being tagged dictature. Russians thinks democracy cannot reform themselves and it will lead to chaos as the truth about USSR made USSR crumble down by losing their allies in the western world. Is it sure? Let Russia spend money thinking they undermine democracies while actually helping them being stronger. Hell may be paved with good intentions and bad intentions may also results in good deeds. Anyway, when you have lived during cold war it is fun to see Russia and USA swap their place.