4 ms·

I agree that Assange acts very untrustworthy, but has anything (in terms of documents) they've released ever been shown to be false?

by crummy 9y ago

SEJeff 9y ago
If you only release half of a narrative to fit your view, are you being truthful? It is debatable as it allows people to potentially infer untruths.
- pizzetta 9y ago
  Are you saying they are withholding information or that they only get one side of the information? They can't publish what they don't receive.
  - hackinthebochs 9y ago
    Assange actually admitted that they have stuff on Trump that they didn't release.
    - carry_bit 9y ago
      Does he need to release it if it's well covered elsewhere?
      - SEJeff 9y ago
        If they want to pretend they're unbiased, yes. Who's to say the other release wasn't only partial?
- kej 9y ago
  Not just that, but they timed releases to benefit one side. The Podesta emails dropped an hour after the Access Hollywood video. That's not a coincidence.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    Not sure why this matters. Due to both publications I decided not to vote for either of the two candidates. It would not have mattered when either piece of information was released, both were enough to convince me that the third party candidates needed more love.
- indubitable 9y ago
  What is your logic for thinking this is even possibly the case? Consider something. Let's use Trump as an example, since the discussion of 'why aren't they releasing stuff on [the other side]' is generally connected to him. Imagine somebody had a treasure trove of leaked and compromising information on Trump. And they then submitted this information to Wikileaks. As the weeks and months passed by, it became clear to them that Wikileaks was not going to publish this information. Do you think they would not submit this to other media outlets? US media outlets would do absolutely anything for this sort of information. I'm curious to see where my logic may be failing me.
  - FilterSweep 9y ago
    > Do you think they would not submit this to other media outlets? Other outlets are accepted [by general public] to have already been compromised wrt bias. Up until the Trump campaign - Wikileaks was considered to be an unbiased leak of private and/or confidential information. The name "Wiki" even intentionally evokes the name Wikipedia, the (slightly biased) generalist source of information that appears at the top of many of our search results. In many cases, Wikileaks is actually worse. Seeing MSNBC or Fox News flash on the screen, we know the bias put forth by the company. We don't know Assange's bias. Correction, we do now. To be honest, I'm curious to see how your logic even equated Wikileaks to other media outlets in the first place.
    - indubitable 9y ago
      I don't feel you're answering the question. I asked exactly why you felt there was good reason to consider, let alone assume, that Wikileaks is choosing to withhold meaningful and impactful information on Trump. If I take your response as the answer then it would imply you believe that somebody would choose to simply not publish substantive leaks if they couldn't get them published by wikileaks. However, I'm sure you don't believe that, so that must be a straw man - leading me to believe that you probably are simply choosing to not answer the question.
      - FilterSweep 9y ago
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  This should be the disclaimer every single time Wikileaks comes up in a discussion.
iuguy 9y ago
Yes. Their entire Erdogan files release was a tragedy from start to finish They released a bunch of info claimed to be mails from the inner echelons of the AKP (ruling Islamist party) that turned out to be an archive of a public Yahoo group used by random Turks to bitch about things including politics. If they'd have hired a basic Turkish speaker to look at the leak, they'd have avoided being burned. Instead, they decided to get into a spat with an actual journalist and researcher who's been working against Erdogan for years and tried to paint them as Erdogan shills.

I agree that Assange acts very untrustworthy, but has anything (in terms of documents) they've released ever been shown to be false?

by crummy 9y ago

I agree that Assange acts very untrustworthy, but has anything (in terms of documents) they've released ever been shown to be false?

SEJeff 9y ago

If you only release half of a narrative to fit your view, are you being truthful? It is debatable as it allows people to potentially infer untruths.

pizzetta 9y ago
Are you saying they are withholding information or that they only get one side of the information? They can't publish what they don't receive.
- hackinthebochs 9y ago
  Assange actually admitted that they have stuff on Trump that they didn't release.
  - carry_bit 9y ago
    Does he need to release it if it's well covered elsewhere?
    - SEJeff 9y ago
      If they want to pretend they're unbiased, yes. Who's to say the other release wasn't only partial?
kej 9y ago
Not just that, but they timed releases to benefit one side. The Podesta emails dropped an hour after the Access Hollywood video. That's not a coincidence.
- grandalf 9y ago
  Not sure why this matters. Due to both publications I decided not to vote for either of the two candidates. It would not have mattered when either piece of information was released, both were enough to convince me that the third party candidates needed more love.
indubitable 9y ago
What is your logic for thinking this is even possibly the case? Consider something. Let's use Trump as an example, since the discussion of 'why aren't they releasing stuff on [the other side]' is generally connected to him. Imagine somebody had a treasure trove of leaked and compromising information on Trump. And they then submitted this information to Wikileaks. As the weeks and months passed by, it became clear to them that Wikileaks was not going to publish this information. Do you think they would not submit this to other media outlets? US media outlets would do absolutely anything for this sort of information. I'm curious to see where my logic may be failing me.
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  > Do you think they would not submit this to other media outlets? Other outlets are accepted [by general public] to have already been compromised wrt bias. Up until the Trump campaign - Wikileaks was considered to be an unbiased leak of private and/or confidential information. The name "Wiki" even intentionally evokes the name Wikipedia, the (slightly biased) generalist source of information that appears at the top of many of our search results. In many cases, Wikileaks is actually worse. Seeing MSNBC or Fox News flash on the screen, we know the bias put forth by the company. We don't know Assange's bias. Correction, we do now. To be honest, I'm curious to see how your logic even equated Wikileaks to other media outlets in the first place.
  - indubitable 9y ago
    I don't feel you're answering the question. I asked exactly why you felt there was good reason to consider, let alone assume, that Wikileaks is choosing to withhold meaningful and impactful information on Trump. If I take your response as the answer then it would imply you believe that somebody would choose to simply not publish substantive leaks if they couldn't get them published by wikileaks. However, I'm sure you don't believe that, so that must be a straw man - leading me to believe that you probably are simply choosing to not answer the question.
    - FilterSweep 9y ago
FilterSweep 9y ago
This should be the disclaimer every single time Wikileaks comes up in a discussion.

iuguy 9y ago

Yes. Their entire Erdogan files release was a tragedy from start to finish They released a bunch of info claimed to be mails from the inner echelons of the AKP (ruling Islamist party) that turned out to be an archive of a public Yahoo group used by random Turks to bitch about things including politics. If they'd have hired a basic Turkish speaker to look at the leak, they'd have avoided being burned. Instead, they decided to get into a spat with an actual journalist and researcher who's been working against Erdogan for years and tried to paint them as Erdogan shills.