15 ms·

Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship

174 points by msabalau 9y ago

msabalau 9y ago
The specific claims: “In WikiLeaks’ efforts to prevent the distribution of ‘Risk,’ they are using the very tactics often used against them – legal threats, false security claims, underhanded personal attacks, misdirection – and with the same intentions: to suppress information and silence speech"
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  This would carry more weight with links to the specific court filings. Would it be possible to track these down?
- mirimir 9y ago
  It is funny to see Wikileaks complaining about leaks. Not even leaks, but rather material provided voluntarily. They were obviously gobsmacked by Poitras turning on them. I must say, however, that Wikileaks overall censors leaks much less heavily than do Greenwald, Poitras and crew. I mean, does anyone know what percentage of Snowden's stuff that's been released? It's my impression that it's small. Edit: typo
  - codyb 9y ago
    I thought that was the whole idea? Let them curate and release the relevent information?
    - mirimir 9y ago
      I guess. But many are pissed off about how little's been released. And about how much it's been monetized. Edit: OK, "profited from".
      - meowface 9y ago
        How much has it been monetized? How do we know only a small amount of it was released?
        mirimir 9y ago
        I should have said "profited from". I mean, The Intercept was built on them. Greenwald and crew have probably earned millions of dollars from them. The US government claims that he took millions of documents. We haven't seen more than thousands, I think. And I've read claims that only a small percentage has been released.
        astronautjones 9y ago
        the USG claim has been aggressively disputed by GG et al
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Re Poitras turning on Assange: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/23/risk-a-sad-comedown-for-laura-poitras/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/23/risk-a-sad-comedown-... I had forgotten that she and Appelbaum had been lovers. Bringing him into the mix destroys the film's objectivity.
    - mowenz 9y ago
      That is actually a pretty good point and not one that was obvious to someone who follows this topic and these are big figures in it (behind Greenwald, Snowden, Assange, etc.)
    - asveikau 9y ago
      What is this supposed to convince me of? I am now more convinced that Assange is guilty if this is the way his defenders talk. This reads like a guy trying to defend a rapist. Does he seriously not understand why people get touchy on the subject of sexual assault when he calls it political correctness? This is not simple unorthodoxy as alleged in your link but a serious crime. It's also hilarious that he is compared to Gandhi at the end.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        I've read many articles about what went down in Sweden. I've seen no claims that he forced either woman to have sex. He didn't seduce them. They wanted to have sex with him, and bragged to their friends. And they remained friendly with him afterward. Until they learned that he'd had sex with both of them. That's when it got crazy. Also, one of them was concerned that a condom had broken, and wanted him tested for STDs. That's initially why she filed a police report. After that, it was mostly driven by the prosecutor. It's not impossible that the US government played a role in that. But the women were initially Wikileaks supporters, and weren't likely part of a plot to entrap him.
        asveikau 9y ago
        I googled and found: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange... If this is as reported, I am not a lawyer but it sounds like he committed a crime, and he is most certainly a major asshole, among other things pushing the boundaries of what constitutes consent, then making the other party feel uncomfortable in their own home. Then he blames the consequences on a global conspiracy. Probably part of the abuser personality, to evict himself from blame. I was thinking, western intelligence has done a lot of sketchy things, usually in the form of coups, more recently with "enhanced interrogation" or eavesdropping... But I am not aware of any other case where people claim they falsely accused somebody of rape. Doesn't fit the profile.
  - superfad 9y ago
    Cryptome was keeping a tally of what has been released. The problem is the total size of the trove is not known publicly. But yes, it would be a very tiny percentage. https://cryptome.org/2013/11/snowden-tally.htm https://cryptome.org/2013/11/snowden-tally.htm
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Thanks. That accounting has been updated through 18 November 2016. It seems like at most 1% has been released.
Operyl 9y ago
Not terribly surprised, it's been well known that Assange leaks what he wants, and doesn't care much after the leak. A lot of information, like the email "dumps" didn't have valid DKIM headers for one. A lot of their stuff is questionable at best now.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  That form of censorship was not alleged. You are imagining things. They're accusing him of attempting to censor the personal stuff, such as the sexual misconduct allegations. Personally I'm mixed on whether those belong in a documentary about WikiLeaks given how irrelevant they are to the organizational purpose.
  - Operyl 9y ago
    No, I'm not referring to the article in this case. I'm saying just in general, Wikileaks is hardly the angel some people make it out to be sometimes.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    > Personally I'm mixed on whether those belong in a documentary about WikiLeaks given how irrelevant they are to the organizational purpose. It's a documentary about Assange. Why would it not include "personal stuff"?
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      I was under the (perhaps wrongful) impression that it was about WikiLeaks in main, and referenced Assange only to serve that topic.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        The rape accusations and Assange himself are intricately tied to Wikileaks, how it functions, and responses to it's actions. Not including those accusations or his response to them when they were widely speculated by some to be brought force by Sweden at the behest of the United States in retaliation to Wikileaks would be odd in a documentary about Wikileaks that happened to cover that period.
WhitneyLand 9y ago
I didn't know why he was so hell-bent against the movie then noticed this side link in the article: http://www.newsweek.com/documentary-inside-julian-assange-world-593037 http://www.newsweek.com/documentary-inside-julian-assange-wo... Assange comes off as a real machiavellian style asshole with vanity and manipulation seeming to him at least as important as his cause. Snowden and Assange often seem to get lumped together but there's a world of difference in personal character, and also in mission. Saying such varied and complex issues are all just "leaking" does both their supporters and detractors a disservice. Details matter especially with so much at stake.
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  I don't know why people still support Assange so clearly. It was interesting to me that people on /r/The_Donald love Assange so much. Before this documentary, I posted there criticising Wikileaks and it was totally hated on. I find that weird because the idea that Assange is unreliable and fake, was the kind of somewhat-counter-main-narrative idea that I thought people of T_D would appreciate. They seem to see him as some sort of hero. I wanted to point out that he seems to me to have once been good, but then he squandered by trading whatever his mission originally was, with some bullshit idea of being a martyr to serve his ego. I can't respect someone who talks about curing the world of ignorance, and having the courage to tell the truth, but then cowers for 7 years in a embassy because he's too afraid to stand up and tell the truth, whatever it was, about what happened. I mean, I know his existence is useful to the IC and various interests, but I personally just find him disgusting. And I genuinely had some belief in what Wikileaks could have stood for. But I don't really see it as that now. To me, Wikileaks and Assange totally sold out. Sorry to offend anyone who feels very differently. This is just my opinion on it.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    > I can't respect someone who talks about curing the world of ignorance, and having the courage to tell the truth, but then cowers for 7 years in a embassy because he's too afraid to stand up and tell the truth, whatever it was, about what happened. It was more about not wanting to rot in US prison, I think.
nailer 9y ago
The other side: http://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-attorneys-blast-citizenfour-maker-poitras-610362 http://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-attorneys-blast-citizenfou... "To be clear: our objections are not about censorship. WikiLeaks remains an unwavering advocate for freedom of expression. This is about safety. It is about protecting journalistic sources. It is about personal and professional integrity, and honoring contractual obligations. Our second major concern about Risk is the way the focus of the film has been radically altered from a broadly sympathetic portrayal of WikiLeaks’ work and the attacks against its staff by the U.S. government to an ill-defined indictment of the "culture of sexism" online."
- mirimir 9y ago
  This is an interesting argument: > Poitras has also violated her unambiguous promise to the subjects of the film that they would have an opportunity to review the film in advance and request changes, and that they could decline to appear if they or their lawyers felt that the movie put them at risk. So I'm wondering whether Assange declined to appear, and she refused. That'd be funny, in a sad way. Still, I've followed Assange's work for decades. Maybe he's been a sexist asshole at times. The flesh is weak, no doubt. But I don't get how that can be a criticism of Wikileaks. Edit: In the parent article, Poitras says: > There were individuals who requested from the beginning not to appear in the film, and those requests were respected. I wonder what the contract actually says about the right of subjects to decline to appear.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    > Maybe he's been a sexist asshole at times. The flesh is weak, no doubt. But I don't get how that can be a criticism of Wikileaks. That's the halo effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect Any quality, good or bad, will affect the perception of other qualities. If people come to believe Assange is a sexist asshole, they will trust Wikileaks less, even if the two have little to do with each other. Another example would be Hans Reiser. Does killing one's wife makes one a worse programmer? Probably not. Still, I bet many people would be reluctant to trust him on file systems stuff, because, well, he killed his wife!
Kiro 9y ago
I remember seeing a documentary many years ago where they interviewed a lot of Wikileaks ex-staff and Assange came off as a power-mad megalomaniac. I don't remember the name but my view of Assange was completely changed after that. Does anyone know what documentary I'm talking about? It was aired on Swedish television (this was before the sexual offense accusations).
BanBait 9y ago
I'm looking forward to the predictable "objective" downvotes HN will give this reply. How do I know I will be downvoted? Because political insanity rules the "objective", "scientific", "rational" perspective. As you read that, I'm sure your mouse is hovering over the glorious down arrow, desperate to extract political vengeance upon these combination of words. If only we can punish the author of these insights, HN says to themselves, we can inversely incentivize the world we want! With that stupid and unfortunately necessary preamble in position to assuage the average emotional junkie, Wikileaks was deeply supported by the intelligentsia when they posted materials that were against the Bush-era War on Terror narrative. Rightfully so. Those who understood economics knew the industrial production model of the world couldn't survive without perpetual nationalist pride/war. Therefore, the Cold War had to be abstracted into a unending series of unsolvable conflicts. Pointing this paradigm out is not effective, especially since George Orwell was the very first to point out such industrial/creative serfdom in his book "1984", written in 1948, one year after international banks dependent on industrial expansion concluded their war to ensure prior clients of steel would purchase it again during reconstruction/Marshall Plan. The "resistance class" of society was deeply familiar with that, and Wikileaks tapped into that post-1960s culture of fuck-the-man when it was convenient and harmless to have such a position under Bush II. But they were just as critical of the "Civil Rights" princeling, known as President Barack Obama. This cost them tremendous social capital, primarily because of his involvement in allowing central banks to keep interest rates artificially low in the hopes of stimulating the global economy. Good intentions, but shit execution. Wikileaks struck against the Obama regime and caught deeply suspicious eyeballs for it... but pressed on anyways. (How dare anyone criticize the first black president of North America... CLEARLY you must be racist if you disagree with his policies regarding big banks) If you want to understand why Wikileaks stands against smear tactis against Trump, then you need to understand why your political revenge fantasies is useless. Wikileaks is anti-globalism (and always has been) because that is the source of power for the structure Wikileaks stands against. Trump is anti-globalist for the bulk because the USD is losing its position as the reserve currency. Wikileaks was the first to seduce the authority sector that they could ensure their leaks had maximum ideological impact. The future involves variants of Wikileaks competing against one another for maximum security against a nationalist security apparatus that cannot organize itself competitively. The ideal of borderless nations dominating the world where detailed in the 1800s. We stand here within that structure where nations can bypass SWIFT and forex by using BitCoin cartels. At some point, ideology and currency will deeply fuse together, and thus, censorship won't be about eliminating ideals, but about eliminating value and time. This will cause modern techniques of censorship to be deemed as oppressive, finally undoing the legacy influence of Baby Boomer power addiction.
throw2016 9y ago
Isn't it rational to focus on outcomes. For the average citizen who doesn't work for the government or has a vested interest there is no context in which they would not value more transparency, especially when the cost is borne almost exclusively by Assange, Snowden, Poitras and others. The constants attempts to belittle and discredit them without considering the overall outcomes seem motivated and desperate. Shutting down conversation by smug references to conspiracy theories is not as easy to do now. On the contrary it's the people who hang on desperately to the 'safety' of fantasy narratives and demand Snowden level sacrifice or signed confessions from authorities who seem out of touch and suspect. Illusions and delusions about fundamental principles and values lies in tatters. Its not as easy to trade in pretensions and present a holier than thou attitude while working the backroom. And for those interested its now possible to have a more informed perspective of our world. That's a huge contribution by wikileaks.
TempleOSfan 9y ago
I wonder how many SMART PEOPLE(tm) would hate assange if he hadnt published the podesta emails.
qb45 9y ago
The unauthorized release of the Film has caused our clients to suffer ongoing irreparable harm, and exponentially increasing damages every time a new viewer sees the Film. Somebody will be very rich, very fast. Yeah, I know I'm fighting a lost battle. But that's the most ridiculous abuse I have seen in a while.
GrumpyNl 9y ago
Everybody should thank Assange for what he has done for us, regarding he is an ass or not.
papabrown 9y ago
I've always had mixed feelings about Assange going back to the beginning of WL. While I take my hat off to what he has claimed is the purpose of WL, I never quite trusted Assange the man. It always felt to me like the kind of power that WL has needs to be wielded by a person of great moral integrity and Assange never struck me as that kind of person. Information is powerful and it can be used both to force transparency and it can be used as a weapon. My impression is that Assange views it more as a weapon that he can use against others. Nobody can operate effectively in a 100% transparent environment. I was living overseas when WL released the State Department communications and most of the information released pertaining to the country I was living in revealed little of noteworthiness. It was all tabloid level stuff where some ambassador made a dismissive or insulting comment about some government official in a report back to Washington. How would any of us like every email we've ever written to be put into the public domain? If we were doing nothing illegal what purpose would it serve to let everyone know that I hate my aunt's cooking and tried to get out of a family dinner in June of 2013? The only thing that information would do is embarrass me and strain my relationship with my aunt. No public good comes from it. And that's where I see many of the WL releases being. Many leaks seem to stir up trouble where nothing illegal or malicious is actually occurring. So, an organization like WL has a great responsibility. I applaud them for uncovering deceit and illegal activities, and I think we need some outside force doing it, but they also need to use that power in a way such that they don't try to prove their own importance by releasing information that is merely sensationalistic in order to heighten their brand. I've never trusted Assange to be the kind of person who can make that distinction. WL would be much better off in the hands of someone/people who were far less concerned about elevating their own notoriety and were able to better able to separate the mission of WL from the politics.
- wcummings 9y ago
  I feel the opposite way. WL seems fairly harmful, but Assange is a hacker, he's one of us, taking on state-level actors. I kinda have to root for him a bit...
- tgragnato 9y ago
  > Nobody can operate effectively in a 100% transparent environment. > Many leaks seem to stir up trouble where nothing illegal or malicious is actually occurring. A distinction has to be made between secrecy and privacy. While Assange built a great tool against secrecy (and that's what scares Washington and alikes), it may be something good for privacy (hypothetically, the relationship with your aunt is safe, and maybe safer than before Wikileaks). Things work when the penalty is commensurate with the bad behaviour, if there's no penalty than you're inciting "the bad things"... If your definition of "bad things" is "everything that's illegal", you're making a reference to the law, but what we should consider is that the law is made by humans. Wikileaks targets those who think they are exempted not only by law, but also by morality, and do this using the threat of completely exposing them ... If you partially expose things, choosing what to publish and what's private; than not only you are implicitly expressing a priori judgment without clearly exposing it, but you’re manipulating the data and decreasing the punishment too (effectively incentivising the wrong behaviour). I think that exposing some of the dirty little secrets of these big players is not something that the average Jane/Joe can do, and is definitely not something that you should expect from someone with a strong moral integrity, or excessive scruples of conscience. Trust is something tricky in intelligence chess games. Penalty is what is needed here, things won’t change until we require the governments to put the people responsible of killings, dragnets, … in jail. But Hacking Team is still happily up and running despite their actions and the same goes for the attitude of the American intelligence community. I might also agree, but I’m sorry to say that we still need Wikileaks.

174 points by msabalau 9y ago

The specific claims: “In WikiLeaks’ efforts to prevent the distribution of ‘Risk,’ they are using the very tactics often used against them – legal threats, false security claims, underhanded personal attacks, misdirection – and with the same intentions: to suppress information and silence speech"

sillysaurus3 9y ago
This would carry more weight with links to the specific court filings. Would it be possible to track these down?
mirimir 9y ago
It is funny to see Wikileaks complaining about leaks. Not even leaks, but rather material provided voluntarily. They were obviously gobsmacked by Poitras turning on them. I must say, however, that Wikileaks overall censors leaks much less heavily than do Greenwald, Poitras and crew. I mean, does anyone know what percentage of Snowden's stuff that's been released? It's my impression that it's small. Edit: typo
- codyb 9y ago
  I thought that was the whole idea? Let them curate and release the relevent information?
  - mirimir 9y ago
    I guess. But many are pissed off about how little's been released. And about how much it's been monetized. Edit: OK, "profited from".
    - meowface 9y ago
      How much has it been monetized? How do we know only a small amount of it was released?
      - mirimir 9y ago
        I should have said "profited from". I mean, The Intercept was built on them. Greenwald and crew have probably earned millions of dollars from them. The US government claims that he took millions of documents. We haven't seen more than thousands, I think. And I've read claims that only a small percentage has been released.
        astronautjones 9y ago
        the USG claim has been aggressively disputed by GG et al
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mirimir 9y ago
  Re Poitras turning on Assange: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/23/risk-a-sad-comedown-for-laura-poitras/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/23/risk-a-sad-comedown-... I had forgotten that she and Appelbaum had been lovers. Bringing him into the mix destroys the film's objectivity.
  - mowenz 9y ago
    That is actually a pretty good point and not one that was obvious to someone who follows this topic and these are big figures in it (behind Greenwald, Snowden, Assange, etc.)
  - asveikau 9y ago
    What is this supposed to convince me of? I am now more convinced that Assange is guilty if this is the way his defenders talk. This reads like a guy trying to defend a rapist. Does he seriously not understand why people get touchy on the subject of sexual assault when he calls it political correctness? This is not simple unorthodoxy as alleged in your link but a serious crime. It's also hilarious that he is compared to Gandhi at the end.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      I've read many articles about what went down in Sweden. I've seen no claims that he forced either woman to have sex. He didn't seduce them. They wanted to have sex with him, and bragged to their friends. And they remained friendly with him afterward. Until they learned that he'd had sex with both of them. That's when it got crazy. Also, one of them was concerned that a condom had broken, and wanted him tested for STDs. That's initially why she filed a police report. After that, it was mostly driven by the prosecutor. It's not impossible that the US government played a role in that. But the women were initially Wikileaks supporters, and weren't likely part of a plot to entrap him.
      - asveikau 9y ago
        I googled and found: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange... If this is as reported, I am not a lawyer but it sounds like he committed a crime, and he is most certainly a major asshole, among other things pushing the boundaries of what constitutes consent, then making the other party feel uncomfortable in their own home. Then he blames the consequences on a global conspiracy. Probably part of the abuser personality, to evict himself from blame. I was thinking, western intelligence has done a lot of sketchy things, usually in the form of coups, more recently with "enhanced interrogation" or eavesdropping... But I am not aware of any other case where people claim they falsely accused somebody of rape. Doesn't fit the profile.
- superfad 9y ago
  Cryptome was keeping a tally of what has been released. The problem is the total size of the trove is not known publicly. But yes, it would be a very tiny percentage. https://cryptome.org/2013/11/snowden-tally.htm https://cryptome.org/2013/11/snowden-tally.htm
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Thanks. That accounting has been updated through 18 November 2016. It seems like at most 1% has been released.

Operyl 9y ago

Not terribly surprised, it's been well known that Assange leaks what he wants, and doesn't care much after the leak. A lot of information, like the email "dumps" didn't have valid DKIM headers for one. A lot of their stuff is questionable at best now.

microcolonel 9y ago
That form of censorship was not alleged. You are imagining things. They're accusing him of attempting to censor the personal stuff, such as the sexual misconduct allegations. Personally I'm mixed on whether those belong in a documentary about WikiLeaks given how irrelevant they are to the organizational purpose.
- Operyl 9y ago
  No, I'm not referring to the article in this case. I'm saying just in general, Wikileaks is hardly the angel some people make it out to be sometimes.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  > Personally I'm mixed on whether those belong in a documentary about WikiLeaks given how irrelevant they are to the organizational purpose. It's a documentary about Assange. Why would it not include "personal stuff"?
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    I was under the (perhaps wrongful) impression that it was about WikiLeaks in main, and referenced Assange only to serve that topic.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      The rape accusations and Assange himself are intricately tied to Wikileaks, how it functions, and responses to it's actions. Not including those accusations or his response to them when they were widely speculated by some to be brought force by Sweden at the behest of the United States in retaliation to Wikileaks would be odd in a documentary about Wikileaks that happened to cover that period.

WhitneyLand 9y ago

I didn't know why he was so hell-bent against the movie then noticed this side link in the article: http://www.newsweek.com/documentary-inside-julian-assange-world-593037 http://www.newsweek.com/documentary-inside-julian-assange-wo... Assange comes off as a real machiavellian style asshole with vanity and manipulation seeming to him at least as important as his cause. Snowden and Assange often seem to get lumped together but there's a world of difference in personal character, and also in mission. Saying such varied and complex issues are all just "leaking" does both their supporters and detractors a disservice. Details matter especially with so much at stake.

19eightyfour 9y ago
I don't know why people still support Assange so clearly. It was interesting to me that people on /r/The_Donald love Assange so much. Before this documentary, I posted there criticising Wikileaks and it was totally hated on. I find that weird because the idea that Assange is unreliable and fake, was the kind of somewhat-counter-main-narrative idea that I thought people of T_D would appreciate. They seem to see him as some sort of hero. I wanted to point out that he seems to me to have once been good, but then he squandered by trading whatever his mission originally was, with some bullshit idea of being a martyr to serve his ego. I can't respect someone who talks about curing the world of ignorance, and having the courage to tell the truth, but then cowers for 7 years in a embassy because he's too afraid to stand up and tell the truth, whatever it was, about what happened. I mean, I know his existence is useful to the IC and various interests, but I personally just find him disgusting. And I genuinely had some belief in what Wikileaks could have stood for. But I don't really see it as that now. To me, Wikileaks and Assange totally sold out. Sorry to offend anyone who feels very differently. This is just my opinion on it.
- mirimir 9y ago
  > I can't respect someone who talks about curing the world of ignorance, and having the courage to tell the truth, but then cowers for 7 years in a embassy because he's too afraid to stand up and tell the truth, whatever it was, about what happened. It was more about not wanting to rot in US prison, I think.

nailer 9y ago

The other side: http://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-attorneys-blast-citizenfour-maker-poitras-610362 http://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-attorneys-blast-citizenfou... "To be clear: our objections are not about censorship. WikiLeaks remains an unwavering advocate for freedom of expression. This is about safety. It is about protecting journalistic sources. It is about personal and professional integrity, and honoring contractual obligations. Our second major concern about Risk is the way the focus of the film has been radically altered from a broadly sympathetic portrayal of WikiLeaks’ work and the attacks against its staff by the U.S. government to an ill-defined indictment of the "culture of sexism" online."

mirimir 9y ago
This is an interesting argument: > Poitras has also violated her unambiguous promise to the subjects of the film that they would have an opportunity to review the film in advance and request changes, and that they could decline to appear if they or their lawyers felt that the movie put them at risk. So I'm wondering whether Assange declined to appear, and she refused. That'd be funny, in a sad way. Still, I've followed Assange's work for decades. Maybe he's been a sexist asshole at times. The flesh is weak, no doubt. But I don't get how that can be a criticism of Wikileaks. Edit: In the parent article, Poitras says: > There were individuals who requested from the beginning not to appear in the film, and those requests were respected. I wonder what the contract actually says about the right of subjects to decline to appear.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  > Maybe he's been a sexist asshole at times. The flesh is weak, no doubt. But I don't get how that can be a criticism of Wikileaks. That's the halo effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect Any quality, good or bad, will affect the perception of other qualities. If people come to believe Assange is a sexist asshole, they will trust Wikileaks less, even if the two have little to do with each other. Another example would be Hans Reiser. Does killing one's wife makes one a worse programmer? Probably not. Still, I bet many people would be reluctant to trust him on file systems stuff, because, well, he killed his wife!

Kiro 9y ago

I remember seeing a documentary many years ago where they interviewed a lot of Wikileaks ex-staff and Assange came off as a power-mad megalomaniac. I don't remember the name but my view of Assange was completely changed after that. Does anyone know what documentary I'm talking about? It was aired on Swedish television (this was before the sexual offense accusations).

BanBait 9y ago

I'm looking forward to the predictable "objective" downvotes HN will give this reply. How do I know I will be downvoted? Because political insanity rules the "objective", "scientific", "rational" perspective. As you read that, I'm sure your mouse is hovering over the glorious down arrow, desperate to extract political vengeance upon these combination of words. If only we can punish the author of these insights, HN says to themselves, we can inversely incentivize the world we want! With that stupid and unfortunately necessary preamble in position to assuage the average emotional junkie, Wikileaks was deeply supported by the intelligentsia when they posted materials that were against the Bush-era War on Terror narrative. Rightfully so. Those who understood economics knew the industrial production model of the world couldn't survive without perpetual nationalist pride/war. Therefore, the Cold War had to be abstracted into a unending series of unsolvable conflicts. Pointing this paradigm out is not effective, especially since George Orwell was the very first to point out such industrial/creative serfdom in his book "1984", written in 1948, one year after international banks dependent on industrial expansion concluded their war to ensure prior clients of steel would purchase it again during reconstruction/Marshall Plan. The "resistance class" of society was deeply familiar with that, and Wikileaks tapped into that post-1960s culture of fuck-the-man when it was convenient and harmless to have such a position under Bush II. But they were just as critical of the "Civil Rights" princeling, known as President Barack Obama. This cost them tremendous social capital, primarily because of his involvement in allowing central banks to keep interest rates artificially low in the hopes of stimulating the global economy. Good intentions, but shit execution. Wikileaks struck against the Obama regime and caught deeply suspicious eyeballs for it... but pressed on anyways. (How dare anyone criticize the first black president of North America... CLEARLY you must be racist if you disagree with his policies regarding big banks) If you want to understand why Wikileaks stands against smear tactis against Trump, then you need to understand why your political revenge fantasies is useless. Wikileaks is anti-globalism (and always has been) because that is the source of power for the structure Wikileaks stands against. Trump is anti-globalist for the bulk because the USD is losing its position as the reserve currency. Wikileaks was the first to seduce the authority sector that they could ensure their leaks had maximum ideological impact. The future involves variants of Wikileaks competing against one another for maximum security against a nationalist security apparatus that cannot organize itself competitively. The ideal of borderless nations dominating the world where detailed in the 1800s. We stand here within that structure where nations can bypass SWIFT and forex by using BitCoin cartels. At some point, ideology and currency will deeply fuse together, and thus, censorship won't be about eliminating ideals, but about eliminating value and time. This will cause modern techniques of censorship to be deemed as oppressive, finally undoing the legacy influence of Baby Boomer power addiction.

throw2016 9y ago

Isn't it rational to focus on outcomes. For the average citizen who doesn't work for the government or has a vested interest there is no context in which they would not value more transparency, especially when the cost is borne almost exclusively by Assange, Snowden, Poitras and others. The constants attempts to belittle and discredit them without considering the overall outcomes seem motivated and desperate. Shutting down conversation by smug references to conspiracy theories is not as easy to do now. On the contrary it's the people who hang on desperately to the 'safety' of fantasy narratives and demand Snowden level sacrifice or signed confessions from authorities who seem out of touch and suspect. Illusions and delusions about fundamental principles and values lies in tatters. Its not as easy to trade in pretensions and present a holier than thou attitude while working the backroom. And for those interested its now possible to have a more informed perspective of our world. That's a huge contribution by wikileaks.

TempleOSfan 9y ago

I wonder how many SMART PEOPLE(tm) would hate assange if he hadnt published the podesta emails.

qb45 9y ago

The unauthorized release of the Film has caused our clients to suffer ongoing irreparable harm, and exponentially increasing damages every time a new viewer sees the Film. Somebody will be very rich, very fast. Yeah, I know I'm fighting a lost battle. But that's the most ridiculous abuse I have seen in a while.

GrumpyNl 9y ago

Everybody should thank Assange for what he has done for us, regarding he is an ass or not.

papabrown 9y ago

I've always had mixed feelings about Assange going back to the beginning of WL. While I take my hat off to what he has claimed is the purpose of WL, I never quite trusted Assange the man. It always felt to me like the kind of power that WL has needs to be wielded by a person of great moral integrity and Assange never struck me as that kind of person. Information is powerful and it can be used both to force transparency and it can be used as a weapon. My impression is that Assange views it more as a weapon that he can use against others. Nobody can operate effectively in a 100% transparent environment. I was living overseas when WL released the State Department communications and most of the information released pertaining to the country I was living in revealed little of noteworthiness. It was all tabloid level stuff where some ambassador made a dismissive or insulting comment about some government official in a report back to Washington. How would any of us like every email we've ever written to be put into the public domain? If we were doing nothing illegal what purpose would it serve to let everyone know that I hate my aunt's cooking and tried to get out of a family dinner in June of 2013? The only thing that information would do is embarrass me and strain my relationship with my aunt. No public good comes from it. And that's where I see many of the WL releases being. Many leaks seem to stir up trouble where nothing illegal or malicious is actually occurring. So, an organization like WL has a great responsibility. I applaud them for uncovering deceit and illegal activities, and I think we need some outside force doing it, but they also need to use that power in a way such that they don't try to prove their own importance by releasing information that is merely sensationalistic in order to heighten their brand. I've never trusted Assange to be the kind of person who can make that distinction. WL would be much better off in the hands of someone/people who were far less concerned about elevating their own notoriety and were able to better able to separate the mission of WL from the politics.

wcummings 9y ago
I feel the opposite way. WL seems fairly harmful, but Assange is a hacker, he's one of us, taking on state-level actors. I kinda have to root for him a bit...
tgragnato 9y ago
> Nobody can operate effectively in a 100% transparent environment. > Many leaks seem to stir up trouble where nothing illegal or malicious is actually occurring. A distinction has to be made between secrecy and privacy. While Assange built a great tool against secrecy (and that's what scares Washington and alikes), it may be something good for privacy (hypothetically, the relationship with your aunt is safe, and maybe safer than before Wikileaks). Things work when the penalty is commensurate with the bad behaviour, if there's no penalty than you're inciting "the bad things"... If your definition of "bad things" is "everything that's illegal", you're making a reference to the law, but what we should consider is that the law is made by humans. Wikileaks targets those who think they are exempted not only by law, but also by morality, and do this using the threat of completely exposing them ... If you partially expose things, choosing what to publish and what's private; than not only you are implicitly expressing a priori judgment without clearly exposing it, but you’re manipulating the data and decreasing the punishment too (effectively incentivising the wrong behaviour). I think that exposing some of the dirty little secrets of these big players is not something that the average Jane/Joe can do, and is definitely not something that you should expect from someone with a strong moral integrity, or excessive scruples of conscience. Trust is something tricky in intelligence chess games. Penalty is what is needed here, things won’t change until we require the governments to put the people responsible of killings, dragnets, … in jail. But Hacking Team is still happily up and running despite their actions and the same goes for the attitude of the American intelligence community. I might also agree, but I’m sorry to say that we still need Wikileaks.