5 ms·

> I think he's reckless, and I think he's in it for celebrity and attention and power rather than his stated ideals. Then you are starting to believe all the m

> I think he's reckless, and I think he's in it for celebrity and attention and power rather than his stated ideals. Then you are starting to believe all the misinformation that the government is trying to spread about him. This is how the discredit people and this information, since they can not actually deny it. I really believe that this is one of the greatest actions to happen to democracy in a long time, and everybody should be rejoicing in these leaks. We need more transparency in government, and there are people out there willing to do this, and get in all sorts of trouble for it. Fortunately he has left Australia, the government here would be more than happy to send him over to the USA on any trumped up charges.

akamaka 16y ago
I feel the same way as the original poster, and I don't see how government misinformation has anything to do with it. Do you remember when wikileaks launched, it was described as an anonymous organization "founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa"? When their website had a raw archive of documents on the front page? The changes in wikileaks started happening before the government became very interested in them. They became much more focused on fund-raising, manipulating the media to their advantage, editorializing the leaked material, and Assange became the figurehead associated with every release of information.
- prawn 16y ago
  And how much more attention have they received to their cause since then? Apple has Jobs. Microsoft has Gates. It was Jordan and the Bulls. Wales is calling for donations on Wikipedia.
  - akamaka 16y ago
    Yes, he has brought attention, and in a very reckless way, I believe. But I didn't come here to debate that, I just wanted to point out that it isn't some government campaign of misinformation that has shaped my view of Assange.
    - wvenable 16y ago
      I'm unclear on this: what has he done that is reckless?
      - akamaka 16y ago
        One point that has been made (and which I agree with) is that this leak will reduce the influence of those in government who are in favour of more openness, and strengthen the position of those who argue for more control of information. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101027_wikileaks_and_culture_classification http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101027_wikileaks_and_cultur...
        wvenable 16y ago
        I'm still unclear what this has to do with Assanage personally? Wikileaks is an organization of people who publish (given enough time) just about everything given to them. It's one thing to call wikileaks reckless and another to call Assanage reckless.
- rhizome 16y ago
  yeah, i don't really care about original intentions, we're now where the rubber meets the road. i don't fault an opportunist for seizing the moment, and i read anybody arguing that this is not the right moment for wikileaks to exist. that the (US) media shirks their responsibility in kowtowing to power is not a controversial assertion. by and large, people with a problem with WL have a problem with the implementation. they want the warning messages to be reworded, and maybe have a 3px box-corner radius. i dunno, you think 5px would look too soft? anyway, what harm is there is letting him do whatever he does? he's not taking info himself, he's at the mercy of his submitters. i'd certainly love to see a zynga tag go up on WL, but until then we have our wonderful government and military to pay attention to and read about. consider it political pornography.
kunley 16y ago
You know, western democracy isn't about leftist complaining and seeing oppression everywhere, but is about building things.
- chaostheory 16y ago
  Yes it is about building and doing things, but WITH the people's consent; as opposed to just doing things and citing state secrets when asked for the rationale. Giving the people the awareness of what's going on helps them build dialog and better political awareness.
AndrewMoffat 16y ago
> I really believe that this is one of the greatest actions to happen to democracy in a long time, and everybody should be rejoicing in these leaks. He'll certainly be written into the history books* for it. *wikipedia edit logs
sigzero 16y ago
You only have to read his interviews to that his "ideals" are taking backseat to everything else.
lionhearted 16y ago
> Then you are starting to believe all the misinformation that the government is trying to spread about him. This is how the discredit people and this information, since they can not actually deny it. Actually, I haven't heard a single government report about Assange or Wikileaks at all. It's my own judgment I came to. There's a big gap between Wikileaks' stated goals and the actual results of their actions. I'm looking at the potential consequences of some of this - releasing documents related to nuclear disarmament in Pakistan, a Politburo agent risking his life to protect dissidents - this isn't greater transparency, this is stupidity. > We need more transparency in government, and there are people out there willing to do this, and get in all sorts of trouble for it. There's a place for secrecy - counter-terrorism, investigating human trafficking smuggling, sensitive negotiations where a local population is sympathetic to violence against minorities, but the country's leaders want to work with the USA to stop genocide and suicide bombing. Transparency sounds great as a buzzword, but you need some pragmatism and discretion too. That's not government misinformation - just my researched and studied opinion on the matter.
- rhizome 16y ago
  >There's a big gap between Wikileaks' stated goals and the actual results of their actions. There is nothing in what you say that constitutes a critique of the project management going on at Wikileaks. You're saying their schedule is slipping, or that the goal is succumbing to yak shaving? Look at what site you're on. You can't always plan the outcome and/or the effect of a project. It is the nature of the entrepreneur to execute on their idea and let the chips fall where they may, and indeed the very site that you've spent enough time on to earn a five-figure karma has a culture and a tradition that glorifies the MVP: minimum viable product. What of WL in that light? How is it that your judgement comes down so squarely against such a central concept of the HN world this time? I don't think politics is a good enough reason here, and Assange cannot be faulted for not being able to predict the future. Shorter: let's look at YouTube's original plan, shall we? Maybe the lesson you're teaching is that the best MVP is an appropriate MVP? An MVP that has a known outcome and thus is the perfect project: one with a known need and no competition, a pure niche? The above may be blunt, and I don't mean to raise a One True Scotsman specter, but I think it's appropriate to question why WL is not given the conceptual-outcome leeway generally allowed to MVPs, or whether they need it at all.
tomhoward 16y ago
I really believe that this is one of the greatest actions to happen to democracy in a long time That's nice. Because it's not the greatest thing to happen to Afghanistan democracy for a long time, given the vigour with which the Taliban seem to be using it (and previous leaks) to identify and punish (ie, murder) Afghani informers.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  There has yet to be even one instance of this being shown. Lots of 'omg informers are probably getting axed,' but zero 'this dude who was named in the leaks died a grisly death.'
  - rhizome 16y ago
    and you know that if one could be even remotely identified as such that obama himself would announce it on national tv. they got nothin'.
  - tomhoward 16y ago
    Perhaps the Taliban deserves the presumption of innocence like anyone else, but it's a concern that deserves better than that kind of dismissiveness. They've said they intend to hunt down and punish informants named in the Wikileaks docs, and they have a long enough history of brutality towards informants (as you'd expect of any side in a military conflict) that it's only prudent to take them seriously. But sure, let's all sit behind the safety of our computer screen in our (relatively) free and democratic society, and scoff at the possibility that this might make the struggle yet more difficult for people fighting for a chance at freedom and democracy in their own land.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      Of course it _might_ make things more difficult. What I'm saying is this: We know how our informants are, so we'd know if they died. The government would _love_ to find more stuff to pin on Wikileaks. Therefore, if 50 informants got killed, as your sibling says, Obama'd be on TV talking about it tomorrow. But we haven't. So until someone shows that they have been killed, I presume that they haven't. That doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future.

akamaka 16y ago

I feel the same way as the original poster, and I don't see how government misinformation has anything to do with it. Do you remember when wikileaks launched, it was described as an anonymous organization "founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa"? When their website had a raw archive of documents on the front page? The changes in wikileaks started happening before the government became very interested in them. They became much more focused on fund-raising, manipulating the media to their advantage, editorializing the leaked material, and Assange became the figurehead associated with every release of information.

prawn 16y ago
And how much more attention have they received to their cause since then? Apple has Jobs. Microsoft has Gates. It was Jordan and the Bulls. Wales is calling for donations on Wikipedia.
- akamaka 16y ago
  Yes, he has brought attention, and in a very reckless way, I believe. But I didn't come here to debate that, I just wanted to point out that it isn't some government campaign of misinformation that has shaped my view of Assange.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    I'm unclear on this: what has he done that is reckless?
    - akamaka 16y ago
      One point that has been made (and which I agree with) is that this leak will reduce the influence of those in government who are in favour of more openness, and strengthen the position of those who argue for more control of information. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101027_wikileaks_and_culture_classification http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101027_wikileaks_and_cultur...
      - wvenable 16y ago
        I'm still unclear what this has to do with Assanage personally? Wikileaks is an organization of people who publish (given enough time) just about everything given to them. It's one thing to call wikileaks reckless and another to call Assanage reckless.
rhizome 16y ago
yeah, i don't really care about original intentions, we're now where the rubber meets the road. i don't fault an opportunist for seizing the moment, and i read anybody arguing that this is not the right moment for wikileaks to exist. that the (US) media shirks their responsibility in kowtowing to power is not a controversial assertion. by and large, people with a problem with WL have a problem with the implementation. they want the warning messages to be reworded, and maybe have a 3px box-corner radius. i dunno, you think 5px would look too soft? anyway, what harm is there is letting him do whatever he does? he's not taking info himself, he's at the mercy of his submitters. i'd certainly love to see a zynga tag go up on WL, but until then we have our wonderful government and military to pay attention to and read about. consider it political pornography.

kunley 16y ago

You know, western democracy isn't about leftist complaining and seeing oppression everywhere, but is about building things.

chaostheory 16y ago
Yes it is about building and doing things, but WITH the people's consent; as opposed to just doing things and citing state secrets when asked for the rationale. Giving the people the awareness of what's going on helps them build dialog and better political awareness.

AndrewMoffat 16y ago

> I really believe that this is one of the greatest actions to happen to democracy in a long time, and everybody should be rejoicing in these leaks. He'll certainly be written into the history books* for it. *wikipedia edit logs

sigzero 16y ago

You only have to read his interviews to that his "ideals" are taking backseat to everything else.

lionhearted 16y ago

> Then you are starting to believe all the misinformation that the government is trying to spread about him. This is how the discredit people and this information, since they can not actually deny it. Actually, I haven't heard a single government report about Assange or Wikileaks at all. It's my own judgment I came to. There's a big gap between Wikileaks' stated goals and the actual results of their actions. I'm looking at the potential consequences of some of this - releasing documents related to nuclear disarmament in Pakistan, a Politburo agent risking his life to protect dissidents - this isn't greater transparency, this is stupidity. > We need more transparency in government, and there are people out there willing to do this, and get in all sorts of trouble for it. There's a place for secrecy - counter-terrorism, investigating human trafficking smuggling, sensitive negotiations where a local population is sympathetic to violence against minorities, but the country's leaders want to work with the USA to stop genocide and suicide bombing. Transparency sounds great as a buzzword, but you need some pragmatism and discretion too. That's not government misinformation - just my researched and studied opinion on the matter.

rhizome 16y ago
>There's a big gap between Wikileaks' stated goals and the actual results of their actions. There is nothing in what you say that constitutes a critique of the project management going on at Wikileaks. You're saying their schedule is slipping, or that the goal is succumbing to yak shaving? Look at what site you're on. You can't always plan the outcome and/or the effect of a project. It is the nature of the entrepreneur to execute on their idea and let the chips fall where they may, and indeed the very site that you've spent enough time on to earn a five-figure karma has a culture and a tradition that glorifies the MVP: minimum viable product. What of WL in that light? How is it that your judgement comes down so squarely against such a central concept of the HN world this time? I don't think politics is a good enough reason here, and Assange cannot be faulted for not being able to predict the future. Shorter: let's look at YouTube's original plan, shall we? Maybe the lesson you're teaching is that the best MVP is an appropriate MVP? An MVP that has a known outcome and thus is the perfect project: one with a known need and no competition, a pure niche? The above may be blunt, and I don't mean to raise a One True Scotsman specter, but I think it's appropriate to question why WL is not given the conceptual-outcome leeway generally allowed to MVPs, or whether they need it at all.

tomhoward 16y ago

I really believe that this is one of the greatest actions to happen to democracy in a long time That's nice. Because it's not the greatest thing to happen to Afghanistan democracy for a long time, given the vigour with which the Taliban seem to be using it (and previous leaks) to identify and punish (ie, murder) Afghani informers.

steveklabnik 16y ago
There has yet to be even one instance of this being shown. Lots of 'omg informers are probably getting axed,' but zero 'this dude who was named in the leaks died a grisly death.'
- rhizome 16y ago
  and you know that if one could be even remotely identified as such that obama himself would announce it on national tv. they got nothin'.
- tomhoward 16y ago
  Perhaps the Taliban deserves the presumption of innocence like anyone else, but it's a concern that deserves better than that kind of dismissiveness. They've said they intend to hunt down and punish informants named in the Wikileaks docs, and they have a long enough history of brutality towards informants (as you'd expect of any side in a military conflict) that it's only prudent to take them seriously. But sure, let's all sit behind the safety of our computer screen in our (relatively) free and democratic society, and scoff at the possibility that this might make the struggle yet more difficult for people fighting for a chance at freedom and democracy in their own land.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    Of course it _might_ make things more difficult. What I'm saying is this: We know how our informants are, so we'd know if they died. The government would _love_ to find more stuff to pin on Wikileaks. Therefore, if 50 informants got killed, as your sibling says, Obama'd be on TV talking about it tomorrow. But we haven't. So until someone shows that they have been killed, I presume that they haven't. That doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future.