4 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoWhat'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.