13 ms·

>convenient all of Wikileaks were damaging to the government of the USA and somehow never to the government of Russia How about judging the information on its

>convenient all of Wikileaks were damaging to the government of the USA and somehow never to the government of Russia How about judging the information on its merits, not its source? Why does it matter one wink if you don't like the leakers?

atonse 9y ago
Intent matters. There's a difference between a whistleblower wanting to expose things that violate the constitution because they want those things to stop, and a foreign agent exposing the same actions, but with the intent to destabilize people's trust in their government. The end result might be the same. But to say it doesn't matter where a leak came from, is to also say that whistleblowers are no different from foreign spies. Update to add my bias here: This is why I can respect the actions of Edward Snowden, but find Julian Assange completely untrustworthy.
- tway923423 9y ago
  >But to say it doesn't matter where a leak came from, is to also say that whistleblowers are no different from foreign spies. Well I guess we have to agree to disagree then. If a "foreign spy" reports that Dow Checmial is dumping pollution in the river, I'm gonna question Dow first, not the spy.
  - Sangermaine 9y ago
    You're being either extremely naive or intentionally obtuse. No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. To use your example, if there were reason to believe that this spy was revealing this information on behalf of Dow's competitors to influence the market and shield/draw attention away from their own malfeasance, that's a concern. The source and the intent of the source does actually matter.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. That was precisely the intention behind characterizing Assange as a Russian spy during the election.
      - Sangermaine 9y ago
        No, it wasn't at all. The allegation was that Assange was selectively releasing info on Clinton and the DNC that was obtained by Russian hackers for the purpose of swaying the election in favor of Trump, or at least severely damaging Clinton. The issue was never that the information was false. Even the DNC itself confirmed that the emails were theirs. More broadly, it's that Assange uses the guise of a seemingly-neutral Teller of Truths to dole out information for the purpose of manipulation, either for his own or other people's agendas.
        crdoconnor 9y ago
        >The allegation was that Assange was selectively releasing info on Clinton and the DNC that was obtained by Russian hackers Exactly. This accusation was intended to be equal parts distraction from the contents and ad hominem. They also mooted the idea that he was a pedophile for a while, but it didn't really take. >either for his own or other people's agendas. But of course. She literally expressed a desire to see him murdered because of him doling out secrets. Who would take kindly to that?
- colordrops 9y ago
  I don't find most sources of information trustworthy. I just want to get info from opposing sources with conflicting goals, which helps put together the whole picture. I full support Russia Today (RT) despite being obviously backed by the Russian government because they are willing to talk about things that no US media outlet will touch. It's despicable that Google publicly and vocally denounces them and de-rates their results in search and news.
  - s2g 9y ago
    You fully support a propaganda agency?
    - colordrops 9y ago
      Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        > Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. No, it isn't. There is a lot of pretty good journalism and then there is a bunch of trash. But the balance - for now - is still on the good side. If Rupert Murdoch kicked the bucket it might get a bit better still. > I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. Such as? FOX vs Russia Today is not 'alternate' by any definition. But if you want to compare the Washington Post with the BBC or Al Jazeera then you might find some balance between those. > What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Agreed, but which narratives you pick still makes a huge difference even when you are trying to discount for bias. > Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting. Or maybe they just don't subscribe to your views and are letting you know their disagreement by downvoting you. If you think HN is full of brainwashed people or actual agents because of a couple of downvotes I suspect the problem is on your end.
- colordrops 9y ago
  Intent doesn't matter. It's information. Judge it on evidence and truth and take it or leave it. No amount of twisted logic will make intent relevant.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    Intent is how we judge the veracity of the information and whether it's slanted or not. I could tell you that Argentina sank a Chinese fishing vessel. Or I could tell you that Argentina sank a Chinese fishing vessel that was fishing in Argentine territorial waters. Both are true statements. One of them is incomplete and can lead you to judging the event differently. And unfortunately you, like most of us, aren't in a position to have personally witnessed the event. Thus you cannot objectively validate the veracity of what I have stated. So we have to rely on various heuristics, things like reputation of the speaker and what we understand about that speaker's biases and intention as well as historical context of the information presented.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      Your example is perfect. You can judge the truth value of whether the boat actually went below the water line regardless of who said it. If you make further judgements on other aspects based on the source that's your own mistake and nothing to do with whether the boat actually sank or not.
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  Wait, so if a foreign agent discovers corruption he should keep quiet because he has a conflict of interest and that's not fair?
- musage 9y ago
  > One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
mavdi 9y ago
I'll question the information merit of any rotten source. I suggest you do the same.
- tway923423 9y ago
  >I'll question the information merit of any rotten source. Go ahead and question it. Have you come up with any evidence that it's fabricated?
  - Sangermaine 9y ago
    The concern isn't fabrication. The concern is that the information is being intentionally selectively provided to influence events.
    - Sag0Sag0 9y ago
      How terrible. They’re telling us the truth at inconvenient times. Disgusting.
      - Sangermaine 9y ago
        No, they're telling us selective elements of the truth (e.g., releasing only information on one political party during an election to sway that election) to destabilize our society and government to increase their own power and shield themselves from scrutiny and criticism. Yes, that is pretty disgusting.
fipple 9y ago
Selectivity of rule-enforcers is a major tool of warfare. If sneezing in public is made illegal, but only Bangladeshis are arrested for it, that's not OK.

atonse 9y ago

Intent matters. There's a difference between a whistleblower wanting to expose things that violate the constitution because they want those things to stop, and a foreign agent exposing the same actions, but with the intent to destabilize people's trust in their government. The end result might be the same. But to say it doesn't matter where a leak came from, is to also say that whistleblowers are no different from foreign spies. Update to add my bias here: This is why I can respect the actions of Edward Snowden, but find Julian Assange completely untrustworthy.

tway923423 9y ago
>But to say it doesn't matter where a leak came from, is to also say that whistleblowers are no different from foreign spies. Well I guess we have to agree to disagree then. If a "foreign spy" reports that Dow Checmial is dumping pollution in the river, I'm gonna question Dow first, not the spy.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  You're being either extremely naive or intentionally obtuse. No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. To use your example, if there were reason to believe that this spy was revealing this information on behalf of Dow's competitors to influence the market and shield/draw attention away from their own malfeasance, that's a concern. The source and the intent of the source does actually matter.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. That was precisely the intention behind characterizing Assange as a Russian spy during the election.
    - Sangermaine 9y ago
      No, it wasn't at all. The allegation was that Assange was selectively releasing info on Clinton and the DNC that was obtained by Russian hackers for the purpose of swaying the election in favor of Trump, or at least severely damaging Clinton. The issue was never that the information was false. Even the DNC itself confirmed that the emails were theirs. More broadly, it's that Assange uses the guise of a seemingly-neutral Teller of Truths to dole out information for the purpose of manipulation, either for his own or other people's agendas.
      - crdoconnor 9y ago
        >The allegation was that Assange was selectively releasing info on Clinton and the DNC that was obtained by Russian hackers Exactly. This accusation was intended to be equal parts distraction from the contents and ad hominem. They also mooted the idea that he was a pedophile for a while, but it didn't really take. >either for his own or other people's agendas. But of course. She literally expressed a desire to see him murdered because of him doling out secrets. Who would take kindly to that?
colordrops 9y ago
I don't find most sources of information trustworthy. I just want to get info from opposing sources with conflicting goals, which helps put together the whole picture. I full support Russia Today (RT) despite being obviously backed by the Russian government because they are willing to talk about things that no US media outlet will touch. It's despicable that Google publicly and vocally denounces them and de-rates their results in search and news.
- s2g 9y ago
  You fully support a propaganda agency?
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. No, it isn't. There is a lot of pretty good journalism and then there is a bunch of trash. But the balance - for now - is still on the good side. If Rupert Murdoch kicked the bucket it might get a bit better still. > I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. Such as? FOX vs Russia Today is not 'alternate' by any definition. But if you want to compare the Washington Post with the BBC or Al Jazeera then you might find some balance between those. > What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Agreed, but which narratives you pick still makes a huge difference even when you are trying to discount for bias. > Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting. Or maybe they just don't subscribe to your views and are letting you know their disagreement by downvoting you. If you think HN is full of brainwashed people or actual agents because of a couple of downvotes I suspect the problem is on your end.
colordrops 9y ago
Intent doesn't matter. It's information. Judge it on evidence and truth and take it or leave it. No amount of twisted logic will make intent relevant.
- wang_li 9y ago
  Intent is how we judge the veracity of the information and whether it's slanted or not. I could tell you that Argentina sank a Chinese fishing vessel. Or I could tell you that Argentina sank a Chinese fishing vessel that was fishing in Argentine territorial waters. Both are true statements. One of them is incomplete and can lead you to judging the event differently. And unfortunately you, like most of us, aren't in a position to have personally witnessed the event. Thus you cannot objectively validate the veracity of what I have stated. So we have to rely on various heuristics, things like reputation of the speaker and what we understand about that speaker's biases and intention as well as historical context of the information presented.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Your example is perfect. You can judge the truth value of whether the boat actually went below the water line regardless of who said it. If you make further judgements on other aspects based on the source that's your own mistake and nothing to do with whether the boat actually sank or not.
cup-of-tea 9y ago
Wait, so if a foreign agent discovers corruption he should keep quiet because he has a conflict of interest and that's not fair?
musage 9y ago
> One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"

mavdi 9y ago

I'll question the information merit of any rotten source. I suggest you do the same.

tway923423 9y ago
>I'll question the information merit of any rotten source. Go ahead and question it. Have you come up with any evidence that it's fabricated?
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  The concern isn't fabrication. The concern is that the information is being intentionally selectively provided to influence events.
  - Sag0Sag0 9y ago
    How terrible. They’re telling us the truth at inconvenient times. Disgusting.
    - Sangermaine 9y ago
      No, they're telling us selective elements of the truth (e.g., releasing only information on one political party during an election to sway that election) to destabilize our society and government to increase their own power and shield themselves from scrutiny and criticism. Yes, that is pretty disgusting.

fipple 9y ago

Selectivity of rule-enforcers is a major tool of warfare. If sneezing in public is made illegal, but only Bangladeshis are arrested for it, that's not OK.