5 ms·

Why is this downvoted? Is there significant evidence to suggest wikilieaks was in fact not compromised?

by zdkl 9y ago

AliAdams 9y ago
Don't ask people to prove a negative.
- zdkl 9y ago
  Ok I'll rephrase. Given the events of last year (the part with message hashes and public keys changing), what gives you faith in wikileaks and Assange?
peoplewindow 9y ago
Why are you asking anyone to prove a negative? There is no evidence that WikiLeaks has anything to do with Russia. None whatsoever. Whenever I've asked people why they think this, they give two reasons: 1 - WikiLeaks hasn't published leaks about the Russian government. 2 - Assange did some TV interviews on RT years ago. These are both laughable. Assange himself gave the obvious explanation for (1) - they haven't done that because they didn't receive any. And it's equally obvious why not: WikiLeaks arose to handle leaks of material that the western press were refusing to publish for unsatisfying reasons, like the Iraq war stuff. But the western press would salivate at the opportunity to publish damaging leaks about the Russian government, assuming the original holder wanted the info to appear in the west and not in, say, Russian. So why would anyone with such material care about Wikileaks? There is no reason for them to do so. Regardless, attempting to divine intent from things that have not happened is hardly a good standard of evidence to use when making serious accusations. As for the TV interviews, well, RT is a large scale news channel that has interviewed tons of different people over the years. Appearing on a TV channel is hardly evidence of working for the related national government. Otherwise everyone who appears on the BBC works for the British government, anyone who appears on Al Jazeera is in the pocket of Qatar and so on.
- altcognito 9y ago
  1. It is disingenuous to say that WikiLeaks doesn't publish bad news about Russia. When panama papers came out they actually attacked the source. 2. They are hosted out of Russia. 3. They actively take sides in political battles. Hardly the stance of an objective "journalistic" organization.
  - Dolores12 9y ago
    I don't really care if it's objective or not as long as they expose the truth.
  - alexandercrohde 9y ago
    That provides enough weight to take everything out of wikileaks with a grain of salt. However, I don't think it's sufficient reason to flag/dismiss anything.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    "They attacked the source"? I had to go look for what you were talking about, I guess it's this: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/04/qa-julian-assange-panama-papers-160409121010398.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/04/qa... I don't see Assange attacking any sources in that Q&A. He does criticise (not attack) the way some journalists handled it, saying they put their own spin on things and that there should have been a bulk release. Otherwise, he argues, the impact would be low. That seems like a reasonable opinion to hold. 2. I looked at their IP addresses. They appear to have three datacenters, at least being advertised to me, one in Russia, one in the Netherlands and one in Norway. From a political perspective having servers in a place unfriendly to America, given how many of their leaks are about the US establishment, seems pretty sensible to me. But saying they are "hosted out of Russia" is extremely misleading, a lie of omission. 3. How are they "actively taking sides in political battles"? They leak what they get. If they didn't, leakers would go elsewhere to get their info out, it's not like Wikileaks has a monopoly on leaking. This is just slander and smearing.
    - 9y ago
mrschwabe 9y ago
Julian Assange continues to be a beacon of freedom, accountability and hope to those who believe in a future not run by the military industrial complex. Evidence enough for me.
- wazoox 9y ago
  No such thing as objective journalism exists, at least nowadays. Surely not in large media editorial lines... They are a crapfest of partisan lies. Reading the NYTimes become harder every day because my eyes keep rolling up in disbelief.
lyschoening 9y ago
Wikileaks is compromised. The source of the leaks is beside the point. Their communications on Twitter over the past year or so leave absolutely no doubt that they are willing to bend the truth to support the Russian agenda. Everything Wikileaks and Assange have written on Twitter has been pure unadulterated garbage since the days of the presidential primaries.
malmsteen 9y ago
How can you see the amount of downvotes ?
brbrodude 9y ago
My guess, because of cognitive dissonance

Why is this downvoted? Is there significant evidence to suggest wikilieaks was in fact not compromised?

by zdkl 9y ago

Why is this downvoted? Is there significant evidence to suggest wikilieaks was in fact not compromised?

AliAdams 9y ago

Don't ask people to prove a negative.

zdkl 9y ago
Ok I'll rephrase. Given the events of last year (the part with message hashes and public keys changing), what gives you faith in wikileaks and Assange?

peoplewindow 9y ago

Why are you asking anyone to prove a negative? There is no evidence that WikiLeaks has anything to do with Russia. None whatsoever. Whenever I've asked people why they think this, they give two reasons: 1 - WikiLeaks hasn't published leaks about the Russian government. 2 - Assange did some TV interviews on RT years ago. These are both laughable. Assange himself gave the obvious explanation for (1) - they haven't done that because they didn't receive any. And it's equally obvious why not: WikiLeaks arose to handle leaks of material that the western press were refusing to publish for unsatisfying reasons, like the Iraq war stuff. But the western press would salivate at the opportunity to publish damaging leaks about the Russian government, assuming the original holder wanted the info to appear in the west and not in, say, Russian. So why would anyone with such material care about Wikileaks? There is no reason for them to do so. Regardless, attempting to divine intent from things that have not happened is hardly a good standard of evidence to use when making serious accusations. As for the TV interviews, well, RT is a large scale news channel that has interviewed tons of different people over the years. Appearing on a TV channel is hardly evidence of working for the related national government. Otherwise everyone who appears on the BBC works for the British government, anyone who appears on Al Jazeera is in the pocket of Qatar and so on.

altcognito 9y ago
1. It is disingenuous to say that WikiLeaks doesn't publish bad news about Russia. When panama papers came out they actually attacked the source. 2. They are hosted out of Russia. 3. They actively take sides in political battles. Hardly the stance of an objective "journalistic" organization.
- Dolores12 9y ago
  I don't really care if it's objective or not as long as they expose the truth.
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  That provides enough weight to take everything out of wikileaks with a grain of salt. However, I don't think it's sufficient reason to flag/dismiss anything.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  "They attacked the source"? I had to go look for what you were talking about, I guess it's this: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/04/qa-julian-assange-panama-papers-160409121010398.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/04/qa... I don't see Assange attacking any sources in that Q&A. He does criticise (not attack) the way some journalists handled it, saying they put their own spin on things and that there should have been a bulk release. Otherwise, he argues, the impact would be low. That seems like a reasonable opinion to hold. 2. I looked at their IP addresses. They appear to have three datacenters, at least being advertised to me, one in Russia, one in the Netherlands and one in Norway. From a political perspective having servers in a place unfriendly to America, given how many of their leaks are about the US establishment, seems pretty sensible to me. But saying they are "hosted out of Russia" is extremely misleading, a lie of omission. 3. How are they "actively taking sides in political battles"? They leak what they get. If they didn't, leakers would go elsewhere to get their info out, it's not like Wikileaks has a monopoly on leaking. This is just slander and smearing.
  - 9y ago

mrschwabe 9y ago

Julian Assange continues to be a beacon of freedom, accountability and hope to those who believe in a future not run by the military industrial complex. Evidence enough for me.

wazoox 9y ago
No such thing as objective journalism exists, at least nowadays. Surely not in large media editorial lines... They are a crapfest of partisan lies. Reading the NYTimes become harder every day because my eyes keep rolling up in disbelief.

lyschoening 9y ago

Wikileaks is compromised. The source of the leaks is beside the point. Their communications on Twitter over the past year or so leave absolutely no doubt that they are willing to bend the truth to support the Russian agenda. Everything Wikileaks and Assange have written on Twitter has been pure unadulterated garbage since the days of the presidential primaries.

malmsteen 9y ago

How can you see the amount of downvotes ?

brbrodude 9y ago

My guess, because of cognitive dissonance