3 ms·

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 governmen

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.
    - overgard 8y ago
      Well A) that wiki leaks page directly says it’s speculative and not endorsed directly at the top, and B) that’s related to him being arrested for being involved in this how? Other than character assassination of him? I don’t even think he’s probably a good guy, but I’m amused that most of the criticism of him is ad hominem.
      - belltaco 8y ago
        It goes to show their intent with trying to inflict maximum pain on the democrats and do everything to make Trump win, why would one create such a wiki in the first place? >criticism of him is ad hominem That's how criticism works. That's how intent is shown. The leaks weren't for the good of the world, it was to push an agenda at any cost, even with fabricated nonsense and also for personal gain, he was begging Trump Jr for a recommendation from Trump to the Aus PM to make Assange the Aus ambassador to the US, as payment for helping Trump win.
croon 8y ago
> (look at some of the terrible stuff Obama did with regard to drone strikes and military operations) Not relevant to the discussion at hand, but I see this comment a lot. Yes, the Obama administration executed a lot more drone strikes than the Bush administration. However, there has been 2243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump administration, compared with 1878 drone strikes in the entirety (8 years) of Obamas tenure. I'm not saying I support either of those, but comments like the one you made is inflammatory without being informative.
- luckylion 8y ago
  > I'm not saying I support either of those, but comments like the one you made is inflammatory without being informative. Once the door is fully opened, everybody rushes through. Once more-or-less targeted assassinations have been normalized by a government, you can be sure that it will be used by every government following them, and ultimately by every other government on the planet. Effective tools will always be used. Be that mass surveillance, drone strikes, offensive cyber warfare or kidnapping people on foreign soil to fly them to torture camps.
- overgard 8y ago
  The point was that people were willing to overlook some actions that are at best morally ambiguous and at worst set an extremely scary precedent because the guy was charming and likeable (I liked him too). That an arguably much worse guy gets to use that precedent and expanded executive power makes it even worse. I don’t see how that’s inflammatory when my point is that an email scandal wouldn’t have hurt a stronger candidate if assassinations via drone strikes doesn’t hurt them; and that email stuff really seems like a sticking point when it comes to wiki leaks and the left.

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.
  - overgard 8y ago
    Well A) that wiki leaks page directly says it’s speculative and not endorsed directly at the top, and B) that’s related to him being arrested for being involved in this how? Other than character assassination of him? I don’t even think he’s probably a good guy, but I’m amused that most of the criticism of him is ad hominem.
    - belltaco 8y ago
      It goes to show their intent with trying to inflict maximum pain on the democrats and do everything to make Trump win, why would one create such a wiki in the first place? >criticism of him is ad hominem That's how criticism works. That's how intent is shown. The leaks weren't for the good of the world, it was to push an agenda at any cost, even with fabricated nonsense and also for personal gain, he was begging Trump Jr for a recommendation from Trump to the Aus PM to make Assange the Aus ambassador to the US, as payment for helping Trump win.

croon 8y ago

> (look at some of the terrible stuff Obama did with regard to drone strikes and military operations) Not relevant to the discussion at hand, but I see this comment a lot. Yes, the Obama administration executed a lot more drone strikes than the Bush administration. However, there has been 2243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump administration, compared with 1878 drone strikes in the entirety (8 years) of Obamas tenure. I'm not saying I support either of those, but comments like the one you made is inflammatory without being informative.

luckylion 8y ago
> I'm not saying I support either of those, but comments like the one you made is inflammatory without being informative. Once the door is fully opened, everybody rushes through. Once more-or-less targeted assassinations have been normalized by a government, you can be sure that it will be used by every government following them, and ultimately by every other government on the planet. Effective tools will always be used. Be that mass surveillance, drone strikes, offensive cyber warfare or kidnapping people on foreign soil to fly them to torture camps.
overgard 8y ago
The point was that people were willing to overlook some actions that are at best morally ambiguous and at worst set an extremely scary precedent because the guy was charming and likeable (I liked him too). That an arguably much worse guy gets to use that precedent and expanded executive power makes it even worse. I don’t see how that’s inflammatory when my point is that an email scandal wouldn’t have hurt a stronger candidate if assassinations via drone strikes doesn’t hurt them; and that email stuff really seems like a sticking point when it comes to wiki leaks and the left.