5 ms·

A quick Google search for 'wikileaks withheld' yields a few links [0][1][2]. [0] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/09/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-doc

A quick Google search for 'wikileaks withheld' yields a few links [0][1][2]. [0] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/09/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-documents-from-syria-files-leaks/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/09/wikileaks-may-have-withhe... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42019835 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42019835 [2] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-wikileaks-withheld-email-linking-syria-to-russian-bank https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-wikileaks-withheld...

nickysielicki 8y ago
Those are all the same story, just repeated. The entirety of the claim comes from Daily Dot, who claims to have an anonymous source that sent them sealed court documents, and then goes further to insinuate that because Wikileaks did not publish that exact document, that it's evidence that they selectively withheld information, presumably because they must have received that document. None of that makes any sense to me, and it lacks credibility. 1. Daily dot has not published any evidence of actually having this document. It could be entirely made up. 2. Even if such a document exists, there's no guarantee that Wikileaks' source was the same source that somehow ended up in the hands of US courts. 3. Why the hell would wikileaks publish so many other juicy files in the Syria Files, but selectively withhold this one minor document about a money transfer between two allies at a time of war? Yes, it's a large sum that's claimed to have been transferred, but in the midst of the Syrian Civil War in 2011? A few billion is peanuts. I don't buy it. edit: The BBC story is about Jared Kushner and is not really about Wikileaks. edit2: 4. Considering that Daily Dot names the group that is behind the attack, why haven't the hackers who allegedly sent the documents to Wikileaks said anything about this situation? They have the power to tarnish their reputation or confirm that it wasn't sent.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Which is a good example of the problem. So the Washington Examiner is publishing false stories about Wikileaks (as has CNN, the Guardian, etc). Which one gets the ticks and the crosses? The one the US government doesn't like gets marked as fake news despite being real news, and the ones lying about them get marked as good. I don't know who at Microsoft thought this was a good idea but they're clearly insane. I had nothing in particular against Edge and even use it sometimes, but after this there's no way I'm going to use it. The last thing I need is some delusional crazies who probably believe Assange works for Putin telling me what is and isn't real.
raxxorrax 8y ago
Well, they also withhold information in their insurance files. Maybe for a good reason. This story is crap though.

nickysielicki 8y ago

Those are all the same story, just repeated. The entirety of the claim comes from Daily Dot, who claims to have an anonymous source that sent them sealed court documents, and then goes further to insinuate that because Wikileaks did not publish that exact document, that it's evidence that they selectively withheld information, presumably because they must have received that document. None of that makes any sense to me, and it lacks credibility. 1. Daily dot has not published any evidence of actually having this document. It could be entirely made up. 2. Even if such a document exists, there's no guarantee that Wikileaks' source was the same source that somehow ended up in the hands of US courts. 3. Why the hell would wikileaks publish so many other juicy files in the Syria Files, but selectively withhold this one minor document about a money transfer between two allies at a time of war? Yes, it's a large sum that's claimed to have been transferred, but in the midst of the Syrian Civil War in 2011? A few billion is peanuts. I don't buy it. edit: The BBC story is about Jared Kushner and is not really about Wikileaks. edit2: 4. Considering that Daily Dot names the group that is behind the attack, why haven't the hackers who allegedly sent the documents to Wikileaks said anything about this situation? They have the power to tarnish their reputation or confirm that it wasn't sent.

repolfx 8y ago
Which is a good example of the problem. So the Washington Examiner is publishing false stories about Wikileaks (as has CNN, the Guardian, etc). Which one gets the ticks and the crosses? The one the US government doesn't like gets marked as fake news despite being real news, and the ones lying about them get marked as good. I don't know who at Microsoft thought this was a good idea but they're clearly insane. I had nothing in particular against Edge and even use it sometimes, but after this there's no way I'm going to use it. The last thing I need is some delusional crazies who probably believe Assange works for Putin telling me what is and isn't real.

raxxorrax 8y ago

Well, they also withhold information in their insurance files. Maybe for a good reason. This story is crap though.