5 ms·

He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. I wouldn’t trust what he says.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. That's strictly true, though misleading.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Yeah, it’s kind of funny. But it does seem to indicate that he’d rather cause a fuss than convey the truth.
- freeflight 8y ago
  What about it is misleading?
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It strongly implies that it was a covert action by the US or its allies to cut him off from the world. When it was actually just his hosts getting tired of his shit.
    - freeflight 8y ago
      Wikileaks tweeted it was a "state actor" [0], which is not just technically true, it's actually true because Equador is a state actor and there's no reference or implication at all to the US in that Tweet. [0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088
      - mikeash 8y ago
        What's the difference between "technically true" and "actually true"? Just look at the discussion that occurred: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 Everybody understands that phrase to mean some significant action. I am certain that Wikileaks knew that people would understand it that way. They could have said "the Ecuadorians cut off Julian's WiFi access" and people would have understood the situation. Instead, they used extremely slanted language and caused everyone to understand something completely different from what happened. Communication is ultimately about creating certain thoughts in other people's minds. "Technically correct" gets you no points at all if you deliberately use language that will create incorrect thoughts in others.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. That's strictly true, though misleading.

mikeash 8y ago
Yeah, it’s kind of funny. But it does seem to indicate that he’d rather cause a fuss than convey the truth.
freeflight 8y ago
What about it is misleading?
- mikeash 8y ago
  It strongly implies that it was a covert action by the US or its allies to cut him off from the world. When it was actually just his hosts getting tired of his shit.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    Wikileaks tweeted it was a "state actor" [0], which is not just technically true, it's actually true because Equador is a state actor and there's no reference or implication at all to the US in that Tweet. [0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088
    - mikeash 8y ago
      What's the difference between "technically true" and "actually true"? Just look at the discussion that occurred: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 Everybody understands that phrase to mean some significant action. I am certain that Wikileaks knew that people would understand it that way. They could have said "the Ecuadorians cut off Julian's WiFi access" and people would have understood the situation. Instead, they used extremely slanted language and caused everyone to understand something completely different from what happened. Communication is ultimately about creating certain thoughts in other people's minds. "Technically correct" gets you no points at all if you deliberately use language that will create incorrect thoughts in others.