4 ms·

>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

>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?

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?