4 ms·

It's impossible to eliminate bias. Even if it's not political bias some people just naturally agree more with one side of an issue or are more interested in cer

It's impossible to eliminate bias. Even if it's not political bias some people just naturally agree more with one side of an issue or are more interested in certain subjects. But that doesn't mean that bias is irrelevant. In my opinion, having followed WikiLeaks over the years, I think it's safe to say that they have an anti-western intelligence/military bias. That doesn't mean that what they publish is untrue. It just means that I'm skeptical about their motives and sources when they release something and I make it a point to try and find a good counter-balance to their take on the issue. Because they probably only presented a tiny portion of the truth that fit their agenda.

belorn 9y ago
My interpretation of events is that before 2010 wikileaks operated mostly like a dumb disk drive that publish whatever with minimal editorial. The War documents leak established them in international news, which change wikileaks tactic to more editorial style. This then resulted that they got the cable leak the next year. After this there were internal fighting, blocking, ddos, economical blockades, volunteers being detained at airports and a lot of intelligence agency taking a lot of interests. The new "editorial" style also meant that they now held on to leaks rather than publishing. And then we had the Swedish investigation and all that mess. Calls for assassinations, "enemy combatant", drones, diplomatic back channels, all contributed to a very antagonistic/paranoid relation between the US government and Assange personally. At this point there is nothing resembling the original style of wikileaks. I see it less like a "anti-western intelligence/military bias", but rather a anti-Hillary/US government bias.
- wybiral 9y ago
  > I see it less like a "anti-western intelligence/military bias", but rather a anti-Hillary/US government bias. I can't disagree with that. Then there are things like the Vault7 leaks, which were stoked by teaser announcements and theatrics. And while they did contain some surveillance tactics that seemed interesting they mostly contained tools and internal communication that was clearly sensitive and generally not information that the public even cared about (their exact code obfuscation algorithms?). The net effect is that most people didn't care much while anti-western intelligence groups probably had a field day. And given the sophistication to obtain the data it likely came from a nation state in the first place wishing to accomplish exactly that goal. There's no way they didn't realize what they were doing. They played part in an attack. Meanwhile Assange yawns at the Panama papers...

belorn 9y ago

My interpretation of events is that before 2010 wikileaks operated mostly like a dumb disk drive that publish whatever with minimal editorial. The War documents leak established them in international news, which change wikileaks tactic to more editorial style. This then resulted that they got the cable leak the next year. After this there were internal fighting, blocking, ddos, economical blockades, volunteers being detained at airports and a lot of intelligence agency taking a lot of interests. The new "editorial" style also meant that they now held on to leaks rather than publishing. And then we had the Swedish investigation and all that mess. Calls for assassinations, "enemy combatant", drones, diplomatic back channels, all contributed to a very antagonistic/paranoid relation between the US government and Assange personally. At this point there is nothing resembling the original style of wikileaks. I see it less like a "anti-western intelligence/military bias", but rather a anti-Hillary/US government bias.

wybiral 9y ago
> I see it less like a "anti-western intelligence/military bias", but rather a anti-Hillary/US government bias. I can't disagree with that. Then there are things like the Vault7 leaks, which were stoked by teaser announcements and theatrics. And while they did contain some surveillance tactics that seemed interesting they mostly contained tools and internal communication that was clearly sensitive and generally not information that the public even cared about (their exact code obfuscation algorithms?). The net effect is that most people didn't care much while anti-western intelligence groups probably had a field day. And given the sophistication to obtain the data it likely came from a nation state in the first place wishing to accomplish exactly that goal. There's no way they didn't realize what they were doing. They played part in an attack. Meanwhile Assange yawns at the Panama papers...