3 ms·

Just because he prefers revealing truths about one side over another (which -- presumably a lot of entities are like that) doesn't mean those truths aren't impo

Just because he prefers revealing truths about one side over another (which -- presumably a lot of entities are like that) doesn't mean those truths aren't important to reveal. Yeah it's a political act, but it's an extremely important one and one that deserves protection. Was Snowden obligated to reveal information about 3rd party hackers to make it fair for the NSA? You seem to be under the impression that he's obligated to be fair. But outside of things like the New York Times what political speech is ever fair? The only obligation I think he has is to not lie or fabricate evidence.

scarmig 8y ago
What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information? Nothing illegal or particularly surprising was revealed in the 2016 emails; the only illegal act involved here was (presumably) Russian hackers committing several federal felonies in order to get access to those emails. Yes, they were embarrassing, but any political organization, or indeed any organization at all, will have mundane communications that seem shocking to an outsider. The RNC almost certainly had more shit talking about their candidate in their emails. Assange had access to those RNC emails, and chose not to release them, even though they'd be, if anything, more interesting than the DNC ones. Assange is no information freedom fighter; he amounts to a political operative who collaborates with criminals to ratfuck candidate he doesn't like, for whatever reason. He has a similar history with e.g. refusals to release Russian state secrets. Why should we celebrate a hypocrite who is motivated primarily by petty personal feuds?
- overgard 8y ago
  I'm thinking of the many other things Wikileaks have revealed, especially in regards to the Chelsea Manning stuff which I think was important. We need governments to be afraid of corruption and terrible acts getting out. If Assange only publishes some of that, at least it's better than none of it coming out. I have little interest in the email dramas. I doubt they really swung the election regardless (I have to imagine Trump's genital grabbing comments were just as damaging). The democrats were more than capable of beating themselves, honestly. People would have overlooked the email stuff for a more likable candidate (look at some of the terrible stuff Obama did with regard to drone strikes and military operations); she lost because people found her extremely unlikable -- like they did in 2008. (NB: I'm not right wing and I didn't vote for Trump) > What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information? What political information isn't targeted and weaponized? And I have no idea, it's impossible to measure whether it was of value or not. Maybe future historians will be able to say.
  - scarmig 8y ago
    There's pretty much nothing Wikileaks has done in the past 5 years except the "email dramas", which was probably just as consequential in real world effects (good and ill) as its earlier history. When I think of big leaks of information that were of public interest, the only other one I can think of recently is the Panama Papers. And Wikileaks had nothing to do with those, except insofar as Assange tweeted "#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID and Soros." Truly a profile in courage, passionate about improving the world by releasing information of public interest. > it's impossible to measure whether it was of value or not You're the one who's justifying the felonies because they release information of public interest! If any tidbit of information that could be of interest to historians is important to release, why not release the RNC emails, or information on Russian kleptocrats?
    - overgard 8y ago
      Well, I'm sure the relative lack of new reports has nothing to do with Assange hiding in an embassy since 2012 and being extremely carefully monitored... > You're the one who's justifying the felonies because they release information of public interest! If any tidbit of information that could be of interest to historians is important to release, why not release the RNC emails, or information on Russian kleptocrats? Well, yeah, if he has that information then I think he should release it. But I don't know if he does? And if he does I don't know if he has other reasons for not releasing it, maybe it'd damage a source, or he doubts it's reliability, or maybe he just dislikes the DNC. I don't know! But I think that just because what he releases damages the supposed "good guys" doesn't mean he shouldn't release it.
      - belltaco 8y ago
        He was doing much more than just releasing information. He was actively aiding and abetting nonsense. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john... Not to mention fueling the Seth Rich nonsense.
- shard972 8y ago
  So your entire point hinges on you "reckon" the RNC emails would have been juicer?
  - scarmig 8y ago
    Nothing hinges on that aside. But, yeah, if you don't think the RNC was saying nasty things about Trump during the primary process, you are very... Out of the loop.

scarmig 8y ago

What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information? Nothing illegal or particularly surprising was revealed in the 2016 emails; the only illegal act involved here was (presumably) Russian hackers committing several federal felonies in order to get access to those emails. Yes, they were embarrassing, but any political organization, or indeed any organization at all, will have mundane communications that seem shocking to an outsider. The RNC almost certainly had more shit talking about their candidate in their emails. Assange had access to those RNC emails, and chose not to release them, even though they'd be, if anything, more interesting than the DNC ones. Assange is no information freedom fighter; he amounts to a political operative who collaborates with criminals to ratfuck candidate he doesn't like, for whatever reason. He has a similar history with e.g. refusals to release Russian state secrets. Why should we celebrate a hypocrite who is motivated primarily by petty personal feuds?

overgard 8y ago
I'm thinking of the many other things Wikileaks have revealed, especially in regards to the Chelsea Manning stuff which I think was important. We need governments to be afraid of corruption and terrible acts getting out. If Assange only publishes some of that, at least it's better than none of it coming out. I have little interest in the email dramas. I doubt they really swung the election regardless (I have to imagine Trump's genital grabbing comments were just as damaging). The democrats were more than capable of beating themselves, honestly. People would have overlooked the email stuff for a more likable candidate (look at some of the terrible stuff Obama did with regard to drone strikes and military operations); she lost because people found her extremely unlikable -- like they did in 2008. (NB: I'm not right wing and I didn't vote for Trump) > What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information? What political information isn't targeted and weaponized? And I have no idea, it's impossible to measure whether it was of value or not. Maybe future historians will be able to say.
- scarmig 8y ago
  There's pretty much nothing Wikileaks has done in the past 5 years except the "email dramas", which was probably just as consequential in real world effects (good and ill) as its earlier history. When I think of big leaks of information that were of public interest, the only other one I can think of recently is the Panama Papers. And Wikileaks had nothing to do with those, except insofar as Assange tweeted "#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID and Soros." Truly a profile in courage, passionate about improving the world by releasing information of public interest. > it's impossible to measure whether it was of value or not You're the one who's justifying the felonies because they release information of public interest! If any tidbit of information that could be of interest to historians is important to release, why not release the RNC emails, or information on Russian kleptocrats?
  - overgard 8y ago
    Well, I'm sure the relative lack of new reports has nothing to do with Assange hiding in an embassy since 2012 and being extremely carefully monitored... > You're the one who's justifying the felonies because they release information of public interest! If any tidbit of information that could be of interest to historians is important to release, why not release the RNC emails, or information on Russian kleptocrats? Well, yeah, if he has that information then I think he should release it. But I don't know if he does? And if he does I don't know if he has other reasons for not releasing it, maybe it'd damage a source, or he doubts it's reliability, or maybe he just dislikes the DNC. I don't know! But I think that just because what he releases damages the supposed "good guys" doesn't mean he shouldn't release it.
    - belltaco 8y ago
      He was doing much more than just releasing information. He was actively aiding and abetting nonsense. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john... Not to mention fueling the Seth Rich nonsense.
shard972 8y ago
So your entire point hinges on you "reckon" the RNC emails would have been juicer?
- scarmig 8y ago
  Nothing hinges on that aside. But, yeah, if you don't think the RNC was saying nasty things about Trump during the primary process, you are very... Out of the loop.