4 ms·

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

by draw_down 10y ago

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.

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.