4 ms·

https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ A good read on Google and Eric Schmidt's relationship wit

https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ A good read on Google and Eric Schmidt's relationship with the State Department and federal government in general "There was nothing politically hapless about Eric Schmidt. I had been too eager to see a politically unambitious Silicon Valley engineer, a relic of the good old days of computer science graduate culture on the West Coast"

colde 8y ago
I am not sure that is really a trustworthy source at this point. Particularly since it seems to focus a lot on involving Hillary.
- tossaccount123 8y ago
  basically every claim is sourced as far as I can tell. Schmidt is pretty entrenched with Clinton considering he started a company dedicated to using tech to get her elected, Groundworks https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/ https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-workin...
- arminiusreturns 8y ago
  That's a ridiculous assertion against a news org that has a better track record than just about any other news org in existence, and it's sad to see people falling for this line of thinking.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  That is a poor reason for casting doubt...that the facts are inconvenient to your politics.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Agreed. Wikileaks may have been reputable at some point in the past but they're not trustworthy now. It's not so much the 'focus on Hillary' but their focus on being pro-Russian state. [1] The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has his own show on RT [2], which mean's he's essentially being paid by Russia's state propaganda media [3]. That, along with attacking the Panama papers leak for "going after Putin", and a string of other pro-Russia activity, means Wikileaks is not to be trusted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russian_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi... [2] https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/ https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...
  - arminiusreturns 8y ago
    Everyone ignore the fact that leaked documents layer out a plan by US Intel agencies to discredit Assange and WL via tactics just like this, these are now the leaks we're looking for apparently. RT has some of the best coverage of some things around, and this constant talking as of it is putins right hand in media form is grounded in tribalism and not in careful evaluation of the facts.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Which parts of the wikipedia citation are "grounded in tribalism"?

colde 8y ago

I am not sure that is really a trustworthy source at this point. Particularly since it seems to focus a lot on involving Hillary.

tossaccount123 8y ago
basically every claim is sourced as far as I can tell. Schmidt is pretty entrenched with Clinton considering he started a company dedicated to using tech to get her elected, Groundworks https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/ https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-workin...
arminiusreturns 8y ago
That's a ridiculous assertion against a news org that has a better track record than just about any other news org in existence, and it's sad to see people falling for this line of thinking.
creaghpatr 8y ago
That is a poor reason for casting doubt...that the facts are inconvenient to your politics.
bduerst 8y ago
Agreed. Wikileaks may have been reputable at some point in the past but they're not trustworthy now. It's not so much the 'focus on Hillary' but their focus on being pro-Russian state. [1] The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has his own show on RT [2], which mean's he's essentially being paid by Russia's state propaganda media [3]. That, along with attacking the Panama papers leak for "going after Putin", and a string of other pro-Russia activity, means Wikileaks is not to be trusted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russian_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi... [2] https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/ https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...
- arminiusreturns 8y ago
  Everyone ignore the fact that leaked documents layer out a plan by US Intel agencies to discredit Assange and WL via tactics just like this, these are now the leaks we're looking for apparently. RT has some of the best coverage of some things around, and this constant talking as of it is putins right hand in media form is grounded in tribalism and not in careful evaluation of the facts.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Which parts of the wikipedia citation are "grounded in tribalism"?