3 ms·
The author linked to Tweets from said individuals who were mentioning the tool. So it's relevant, however a bit odd they chose those specific examples when I'm
by josefresco 9y ago
The author linked to Tweets from said individuals who were mentioning the tool. So it's relevant, however a bit odd they chose those specific examples when I'm sure they're are other "celebrities" who also linked to the tool. Maybe the author thought of these people as those most interested in data privacy?
- fortythirteen 9y agoI'm not so sure, considering how their coverage of the DNC lawsuit read like a press release, with zero journalistic objectivity. It treated the currently unproven claims of a civil suit as if it was already assumed fact.[0] It contains this gem of a paragraph: > The leaks continued steadily from there, as the suit details. Guccifer 2.0 struck again on June 27, June 30, and July 6. On July 22, WikiLeaks took the wheel, releasing nearly 20,000 internal DNC emails. The following day, according to the suit, multiple DNC employees received an email that said: “I hope your children get raped and murdered. I hope your family knows nothing but suffering, torture, and death.” All evidence suggests, as Wikileaks has maintained, that their emails came from a physical source, and not Guccifer 2.0. I think there is a larger editorial bias at play at Wired. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/dnc-lawsuit-reveals-key-details-2016-hack/ https://www.wired.com/story/dnc-lawsuit-reveals-key-details-...
- 908087 9y agoIt seemed like both an attempt to associate Assange/Wikileaks with the "alt-right", and an attempt to associate the desire to find out what Facebook has on you with the same. It felt forced and awkward in the context of the article.