3 ms·
Right - it seemed like they supported "the people" in the early days. They exposed Bush and Obama when they had things worth exposing. Then came the promises o
by tehwebguy 9y ago
Right - it seemed like they supported "the people" in the early days. They exposed Bush and Obama when they had things worth exposing.
Then came the promises of damning Bank of America leaks that never materialized, holding on to Guantanamo docs until NYT scooped them, the 2010 insurance file that was never cracked, the 2016 insurance file that was never cracked, ...
- xienze 9y ago> Right - it seemed like they supported "the people" in the early days. They exposed Bush and Obama when they had things worth exposing. Well they're still supporting "the people", just not the ones you align with. Which of course means they've lost all credibility and we should ignore them now, right?
- ArchReaper 9y agoThat's a really dishonest argument. How are they supporting the people? How does this benefit society? All this does is attempt to take away the spotlight from other shit happening in our country. Every major country develops hacking software. This isn't news. This isn't even surprising or ground-breaking. It's not even that invasive, it requires physical access AND an admin account! This is just a distraction. Society is no better off with this information being public.
- tehwebguy 9y agoHah no, they lost credibility with the Turkey emails. They hoard secrets yet dumped those without even checking to see what they were - what is that about?
- caycep 9y agoplus it's really only American/+hegemony "leaks" they traffic in these days. I'm sure there's much more juicy Russian/Putin-esca malware and intelligence tools, policies, etc. Granted, those are often obscured in black market, or other 3rd parties, at least based on what we know of, but Brian Krebs is doing a much better job in "exposing" things than Assange at this point.