6 ms·

Just to repeat myself one more time here for those not aware of this since this is the top comment. Wikileaks has almost definitely influenced the result of Ke

Just to repeat myself one more time here for those not aware of this since this is the top comment. Wikileaks has almost definitely influenced the result of Kenyan election in 2007 by releasing the Kroll report about vast corruption. Assange even got an Amnesty International award for leaking information then. He was a hero back then but suddenly when the shoe is on the other foot, he's a villain.

thomasz 8y ago
He became the villain when he became highly selective with the material he releases, which turned him from being a provider for whistle-blowers to a propagandist.
- cf498 8y ago
  Wikileaks aims for the best possible exposure of a leak. This influences in what form the information is published and over what timeframe. They dont just dump the entire leak and hope some journalist can be bothered to read it before the next big headline takes the focus away again. This takes a lot of work. Making sure your sources are protected takes a lot of work and sadly, there is only so much attention people spend on leaks.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    Russia tried just dumping data with DCleaks. Those were a complete failure because of the lack of WL-like media game.
- yholio 8y ago
  Nonetheless, he's still a journalist even when he does that. Media and free speech can be biased. You might not want to follow and give credence to such outlets, but they still have freedom of speech, else the credibility of everybody is questioned.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >he became highly selective with the material he releases That’s a pretty big accusation! Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Why have there never been any leaks with an attached note calling out WL for failure to release?
  - headShrinker 8y ago
    Most people risked their jobs or their lives and freedom to secretly transport stolen docs to Wikileaks. I won’t expect a review complaining about the lack of release. Whether the material released is selective or the material feed to WL is selective the result is Wikileaks release clearly favored one side. Assange is also known to have a proclivity for Russia
    - objektif 8y ago
      Why cant you accept it as it is and appreciate the fact that his work benefits the public? No one cares about your political beliefs.
      - headShrinker 8y ago
        > Why cant you accept it as it is I can. But... this isn’t happening in a vacuum and there is context to this situation. While it seems to benefit the public, WL also is aimed at taking particular groups down. The groups being shielded are not “good”. Ultimately “public benefit” is questionable. You don’t know my political beliefs and I made no reference to them...
        objektif 8y ago
        Ok you are right that it seems that eventually “evil”(going further than just “not good”) guys benefited from the leak. But if we prosecute people like Assange what message does it send to potential whistleblowers? You cannot pick and choose what type of information you want to be leaked.
  - pupppet 8y ago
forgottenpass 8y ago
If I only paid attention to the mainstream news I would not understand Assage. But I remember when Wikileaks was announced for the first time on slashdot and I read their mission statement. Every time a big leak happens, the news cooks up a new narrative about who Wikileaks is and what their goals and motivations are. And every time it's just something the editor wants to be true. Its a better story for him to be the hero or the villain. But if you frame the actions of what wikileaks said they were going to do (publish verifiable leaks much more indiscriminately than the press), they've been pretty consistent.

thomasz 8y ago

He became the villain when he became highly selective with the material he releases, which turned him from being a provider for whistle-blowers to a propagandist.

cf498 8y ago
Wikileaks aims for the best possible exposure of a leak. This influences in what form the information is published and over what timeframe. They dont just dump the entire leak and hope some journalist can be bothered to read it before the next big headline takes the focus away again. This takes a lot of work. Making sure your sources are protected takes a lot of work and sadly, there is only so much attention people spend on leaks.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Russia tried just dumping data with DCleaks. Those were a complete failure because of the lack of WL-like media game.
yholio 8y ago
Nonetheless, he's still a journalist even when he does that. Media and free speech can be biased. You might not want to follow and give credence to such outlets, but they still have freedom of speech, else the credibility of everybody is questioned.
ryanlol 8y ago
>he became highly selective with the material he releases That’s a pretty big accusation! Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Why have there never been any leaks with an attached note calling out WL for failure to release?
- headShrinker 8y ago
  Most people risked their jobs or their lives and freedom to secretly transport stolen docs to Wikileaks. I won’t expect a review complaining about the lack of release. Whether the material released is selective or the material feed to WL is selective the result is Wikileaks release clearly favored one side. Assange is also known to have a proclivity for Russia
  - objektif 8y ago
    Why cant you accept it as it is and appreciate the fact that his work benefits the public? No one cares about your political beliefs.
    - headShrinker 8y ago
      > Why cant you accept it as it is I can. But... this isn’t happening in a vacuum and there is context to this situation. While it seems to benefit the public, WL also is aimed at taking particular groups down. The groups being shielded are not “good”. Ultimately “public benefit” is questionable. You don’t know my political beliefs and I made no reference to them...
      - objektif 8y ago
        Ok you are right that it seems that eventually “evil”(going further than just “not good”) guys benefited from the leak. But if we prosecute people like Assange what message does it send to potential whistleblowers? You cannot pick and choose what type of information you want to be leaked.
- pupppet 8y ago

forgottenpass 8y ago

If I only paid attention to the mainstream news I would not understand Assage. But I remember when Wikileaks was announced for the first time on slashdot and I read their mission statement. Every time a big leak happens, the news cooks up a new narrative about who Wikileaks is and what their goals and motivations are. And every time it's just something the editor wants to be true. Its a better story for him to be the hero or the villain. But if you frame the actions of what wikileaks said they were going to do (publish verifiable leaks much more indiscriminately than the press), they've been pretty consistent.