11 ms·

Yea but nobody remembers those.

wallace_f 8y ago
Like the Iraq Warlogs, or DWS scandal. Even leaks like the Stratfor files are certainly in the best interests of the "little guy," if anyone actually gives a shit about them. But if "all a man is, is what others say of him," then by watching the news, Assange is just a Russian agent.
- xster 8y ago
  But how could you 'remember' the DWS scandal if WikiLeaks were illegal to read :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-beYBLrkNAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-beYBLrkNAg
- thanosnose 8y ago
  > But if "all a man is, is what others say of him," then by watching the news, Assange is just a Russian agent. One of the most interesting aspect of the assange story is how the news industry celebrated assange in the early part of the 2010s and then started to demonize him in the past few years. It was all so sudden as if someone flipped a switch and everyone got on the same message. It's also interesting how sexual assault accusations were used to take down assange just like it was used for kavanaugh.
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    W trained the press not to ask hard questions and keep to the provided script.
  - rdtsc 8y ago
    I think his case will be closely studied for years. And it is how propaganda works. There is no coordination between the 5 or 6 or however many media outlets but it seems as if there is turn almost based on how quickly he went from a martir to Russian puppet in just a year or less. Same thing kind of happened to Greenwald though to a lesser degree.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      The consensus is that Greenwald isn't a Russian agent. He's just stupid. His reporting has consistently had large and obvious errors at least since he was writing for Common Dreams.
      - resters 8y ago
        Examples?
      - throwaway6734 8y ago
        This is a strong claim. Please provide evidence.
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        Strong claim? It's obvious to anybody who has read his work and is even a tiny bit familiar with the things he is reporting about. https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/prism-problems-direct-access-epic-botch-or-mere-semantics https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/prism-prob... https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248?s=20 https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248?s...
      - colordrops 8y ago
        How would you compare his reporting to the likes of CNN and FOX?
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        Shep Smith and the news anchors at CNN at least do a reasonable job of reporting the news correctly (which Greenwald can't), though none of those does strong investigative journalism.
        wallace_f 8y ago
        Ok can you give me a couple of examples of these egregious errors by Greenwald you're talking about?
  - toomanybeersies 8y ago
    Assange and Wikileaks have been demonised because they decided to release information in such a way as to deliberately influence an election. The DNC/Podesta leaks were timed specifically to cause maximum negative effect to Clinton and the Democrats. Then there's the lack of curation in some of the leaks. A lot of personal data that shouldn't be public by any means (e.g. medical information, sexual identity) has been leaked by Wikileaks. There is a limit to what information should be open and available to the public. I also can't help but feel like they've stopped being transparency campaigners and whistleblowers, and now do it for the social media spectacle and publicity. Just look at how they released Vault 7, with their viral cryptic posts before the release. Wikileaks feels more like a media agency than a group of transparency crusaders these days.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      Exactly as you state (though maybe not intend). Those cheering him on didn't care about the reasons, lack of curation, content choice, etc since they were ok with who was maligned. Once those cheering him disagreed with who was hurt, it starts to "feel" different and concerns about reason, lack of curation, and content choice magically become important.
    - mjevans 8y ago
      If that's the real reason, then it must also be asked if there was any special influence by Assanage on the timing or if a service created by them was merely used as a conduit.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      >Assange and Wikileaks have been demonised because they decided to release information in such a way as to deliberately influence an election Wikileaks has always been anti-US, when they finally manage to deliver a good punch they’re suddenly a bad actor? > also can't help but feel like they've stopped being transparency campaigners and whistleblowers, and now do it for the social media spectacle and publicity. Just look at how they released Vault 7, with their viral cryptic posts before the release. Wikileaks feels more like a media agency than a group of transparency crusaders Publicity brings more leaks. They’re simply doing a good job.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Come on. If the best a state level actor can do to "bring down" a person, they'd most likely manage something more untoward than "had consensual sex with someone, but questionable consent over the use of a condom". I think that more points to a narcissistic type, than a conspiracy on a state bent on character assassination.=
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      Why would you be surprised by ineptitude, or willingness to conspire, here, anyways? You should read about the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran Contra, watch the documentary 1971(1), McCarthyism, the FBI's dealings with MLK, or read about Gary Webb. It's not surprising. The FBI apparently sent agents to other countries trying to frame Assange. Iceland told them to fuck off: www.katoikos.eu/interview/icelandic-minister-who-refused-cooperation-with-the-fbi-ogmundur-jonasson-in-an-interview.html Many also claim Assange has proof he was conspired against, or at least was innocent: https://abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-on-rape-allegations/8099276?pfmredir=sm https://abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-publi... 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_(2014_film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_(2014_film)
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
        You would be doing me a grave injustice to think I am an apologist for the US government, in either colored administration (blue or red), to think that I am blind to their misdeeds, such as the "original" 9/11, the day Pinochet was installed. And well, as someone who grew up in Australia, that article is full of nothings: - while 'rape' is used repeatedly, no-one, including either the woman involved, nor the prosecutor has ever claimed that rape or non-consensual sex occurred, only that there was a "disagreement about the use of condoms". - In the statement Mr Assange says he has been subjected to "six years of unlawful, politicised detention without charge" - well, yes. He does say that. Others say he has subjected _himself_ to detention and exile. - these are all claims of Assange, who hasn't released any of the text messages, just said "he has [some, but not all] of them So when you say "Many also claim", the more accurate statement is "Assange claims".
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  yeah, I don't really understand how someone dedicated to upsetting the authorities got painted as a tool of right-wing US politics. Or maybe my left-leaning echo chamber is portraying him as that, and the alt-right bubble sees him as a Russian agent? It'd be interesting to compare notes... is there a service for matching up people in different bubbles so we can compare facts?
  - jacobush 8y ago
    You need to step up your game mister! Currently, the alt-right does not see him as a Russian agent, because Russia doesn't meddle in elections and stuff. That's just crazy talk propaganda. They are dangerous with some nuclear stuff so we have to build more nukes. But they are good in Syria and we need to either step away completely from that shit-show or give them a hand and fight on their side. It's complicated. The left-leaning have Assange see him as a tool of right-wing US politics which are 100% bought by Russian oligarchs, or maybe the US politics bought the Russian oligarchs. It's unclear. Questions? Whatever you do, do not cross the streams. Gotta keep both (can never have more than 2 sides in a debate! that's we call it bi-partisan! have you heard of tri-partisan?! Is that some kind of cheese?! lol) sides hot and angry. Don't mind the man behind the curtain.
    - marcus_holmes 8y ago
      haha awesome. Good to hear the other side :) I'm wondering why the downvotes though? Do we not understand that we inhabit bubbles?
      - 7000skeletons 8y ago
        Yeah but people get upset when you point the fact out to them, sometimes. Bubbles are what OTHER people inhabit, see. We're all special and unique free-thinkers immune to unconscious biases. Or something.
        marcus_holmes 8y ago
- scoot_718 8y ago
  Also if you judge him by his actions.

Like the Iraq Warlogs, or DWS scandal. Even leaks like the Stratfor files are certainly in the best interests of the "little guy," if anyone actually gives a shit about them. But if "all a man is, is what others say of him," then by watching the news, Assange is just a Russian agent.

xster 8y ago
But how could you 'remember' the DWS scandal if WikiLeaks were illegal to read :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-beYBLrkNAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-beYBLrkNAg
thanosnose 8y ago
> But if "all a man is, is what others say of him," then by watching the news, Assange is just a Russian agent. One of the most interesting aspect of the assange story is how the news industry celebrated assange in the early part of the 2010s and then started to demonize him in the past few years. It was all so sudden as if someone flipped a switch and everyone got on the same message. It's also interesting how sexual assault accusations were used to take down assange just like it was used for kavanaugh.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  W trained the press not to ask hard questions and keep to the provided script.
- rdtsc 8y ago
  I think his case will be closely studied for years. And it is how propaganda works. There is no coordination between the 5 or 6 or however many media outlets but it seems as if there is turn almost based on how quickly he went from a martir to Russian puppet in just a year or less. Same thing kind of happened to Greenwald though to a lesser degree.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    The consensus is that Greenwald isn't a Russian agent. He's just stupid. His reporting has consistently had large and obvious errors at least since he was writing for Common Dreams.
    - resters 8y ago
      Examples?
    - throwaway6734 8y ago
      This is a strong claim. Please provide evidence.
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        Strong claim? It's obvious to anybody who has read his work and is even a tiny bit familiar with the things he is reporting about. https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/prism-problems-direct-access-epic-botch-or-mere-semantics https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/prism-prob... https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248?s=20 https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248?s...
    - colordrops 8y ago
      How would you compare his reporting to the likes of CNN and FOX?
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        Shep Smith and the news anchors at CNN at least do a reasonable job of reporting the news correctly (which Greenwald can't), though none of those does strong investigative journalism.
        wallace_f 8y ago
        Ok can you give me a couple of examples of these egregious errors by Greenwald you're talking about?
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  Assange and Wikileaks have been demonised because they decided to release information in such a way as to deliberately influence an election. The DNC/Podesta leaks were timed specifically to cause maximum negative effect to Clinton and the Democrats. Then there's the lack of curation in some of the leaks. A lot of personal data that shouldn't be public by any means (e.g. medical information, sexual identity) has been leaked by Wikileaks. There is a limit to what information should be open and available to the public. I also can't help but feel like they've stopped being transparency campaigners and whistleblowers, and now do it for the social media spectacle and publicity. Just look at how they released Vault 7, with their viral cryptic posts before the release. Wikileaks feels more like a media agency than a group of transparency crusaders these days.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Exactly as you state (though maybe not intend). Those cheering him on didn't care about the reasons, lack of curation, content choice, etc since they were ok with who was maligned. Once those cheering him disagreed with who was hurt, it starts to "feel" different and concerns about reason, lack of curation, and content choice magically become important.
  - mjevans 8y ago
    If that's the real reason, then it must also be asked if there was any special influence by Assanage on the timing or if a service created by them was merely used as a conduit.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    >Assange and Wikileaks have been demonised because they decided to release information in such a way as to deliberately influence an election Wikileaks has always been anti-US, when they finally manage to deliver a good punch they’re suddenly a bad actor? > also can't help but feel like they've stopped being transparency campaigners and whistleblowers, and now do it for the social media spectacle and publicity. Just look at how they released Vault 7, with their viral cryptic posts before the release. Wikileaks feels more like a media agency than a group of transparency crusaders Publicity brings more leaks. They’re simply doing a good job.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  Come on. If the best a state level actor can do to "bring down" a person, they'd most likely manage something more untoward than "had consensual sex with someone, but questionable consent over the use of a condom". I think that more points to a narcissistic type, than a conspiracy on a state bent on character assassination.=
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Why would you be surprised by ineptitude, or willingness to conspire, here, anyways? You should read about the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran Contra, watch the documentary 1971(1), McCarthyism, the FBI's dealings with MLK, or read about Gary Webb. It's not surprising. The FBI apparently sent agents to other countries trying to frame Assange. Iceland told them to fuck off: www.katoikos.eu/interview/icelandic-minister-who-refused-cooperation-with-the-fbi-ogmundur-jonasson-in-an-interview.html Many also claim Assange has proof he was conspired against, or at least was innocent: https://abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-on-rape-allegations/8099276?pfmredir=sm https://abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-publi... 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_(2014_film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_(2014_film)
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      You would be doing me a grave injustice to think I am an apologist for the US government, in either colored administration (blue or red), to think that I am blind to their misdeeds, such as the "original" 9/11, the day Pinochet was installed. And well, as someone who grew up in Australia, that article is full of nothings: - while 'rape' is used repeatedly, no-one, including either the woman involved, nor the prosecutor has ever claimed that rape or non-consensual sex occurred, only that there was a "disagreement about the use of condoms". - In the statement Mr Assange says he has been subjected to "six years of unlawful, politicised detention without charge" - well, yes. He does say that. Others say he has subjected _himself_ to detention and exile. - these are all claims of Assange, who hasn't released any of the text messages, just said "he has [some, but not all] of them So when you say "Many also claim", the more accurate statement is "Assange claims".
marcus_holmes 8y ago
yeah, I don't really understand how someone dedicated to upsetting the authorities got painted as a tool of right-wing US politics. Or maybe my left-leaning echo chamber is portraying him as that, and the alt-right bubble sees him as a Russian agent? It'd be interesting to compare notes... is there a service for matching up people in different bubbles so we can compare facts?
- jacobush 8y ago
  You need to step up your game mister! Currently, the alt-right does not see him as a Russian agent, because Russia doesn't meddle in elections and stuff. That's just crazy talk propaganda. They are dangerous with some nuclear stuff so we have to build more nukes. But they are good in Syria and we need to either step away completely from that shit-show or give them a hand and fight on their side. It's complicated. The left-leaning have Assange see him as a tool of right-wing US politics which are 100% bought by Russian oligarchs, or maybe the US politics bought the Russian oligarchs. It's unclear. Questions? Whatever you do, do not cross the streams. Gotta keep both (can never have more than 2 sides in a debate! that's we call it bi-partisan! have you heard of tri-partisan?! Is that some kind of cheese?! lol) sides hot and angry. Don't mind the man behind the curtain.
  - marcus_holmes 8y ago
    haha awesome. Good to hear the other side :) I'm wondering why the downvotes though? Do we not understand that we inhabit bubbles?
    - 7000skeletons 8y ago
      Yeah but people get upset when you point the fact out to them, sometimes. Bubbles are what OTHER people inhabit, see. We're all special and unique free-thinkers immune to unconscious biases. Or something.
      - marcus_holmes 8y ago
scoot_718 8y ago
Also if you judge him by his actions.