4 ms·

A lot of corporations are coming out against Wikileaks, and I don't feel the same way. What are they considering that I'm not

stretchwithme 16y ago
They're considering how uncomfortable it is to have their arms twisted.
- kmfrk 16y ago
  Letting PayPal keep all Wikileaks' donation money for themselves is not exactly something that requires that much arm-twisting. They've done it before, and now they have a scapegoat.
  - cubicle67 16y ago
    yeah, what's the story with that? Shouldn't the money either be given to Wikileaks (unlikely) or returned the the donor? In what sort of world can the middle man cut one side of a deal out, and keep the money?
    - ra 16y ago
      Exactly. Who's the criminal in this picture?
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        PayPal! Ah, but their existence bore YouTube, and without YouTube, where would we be then? What did Mark Cuban ever do for you?
      - billmcneale 16y ago
        WikiLeaks. They stole documents and they are publishing them without the consent of the owners. The fact that this owner is the government is irrelevant. How would you feel if it were your personal emails that were published on a public web site like this?
        rue 16y ago
        Just on the off-chance that you are serious: it is of the utmost importance that the owner is a government, not a private person. The argument is that the government is keeping secrets from its people without the people being able to change that by normal means. You are also incorrect about Wikileaks stealing any documents. They are only publishing.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        billmcneale 16y ago
        Bullshit, these documents don't belong to them, which is why most ISP's are refusing to host them. I also happen to find that not everything the government is doing should be public, even in democracies like the US. If you think that 100% transparency is a requirement, you really have no clue how the world of diplomacy is working. A certain amount of privacy is necessary, just like it's necessary to keep the salaries of employees secret to a certain extent in companies. Chaos would ensue otherwise. I'm all for airing dirty private dealings and scandals that the government is doing, but the way Wikileaks is doing it is wrong.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
DougBTX 16y ago
Well, that's the point. They don't want you considering their secrets.
billmcneale 16y ago
WikiLeaks is violating the terms of service of most of the companies they are trying to use, so their accounts get shut down. This has nothing to do with censorship nor giving in to political pressure, stop seeing conspiracies everywhere.

stretchwithme 16y ago

They're considering how uncomfortable it is to have their arms twisted.

kmfrk 16y ago
Letting PayPal keep all Wikileaks' donation money for themselves is not exactly something that requires that much arm-twisting. They've done it before, and now they have a scapegoat.
- cubicle67 16y ago
  yeah, what's the story with that? Shouldn't the money either be given to Wikileaks (unlikely) or returned the the donor? In what sort of world can the middle man cut one side of a deal out, and keep the money?
  - ra 16y ago
    Exactly. Who's the criminal in this picture?
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      PayPal! Ah, but their existence bore YouTube, and without YouTube, where would we be then? What did Mark Cuban ever do for you?
    - billmcneale 16y ago
      WikiLeaks. They stole documents and they are publishing them without the consent of the owners. The fact that this owner is the government is irrelevant. How would you feel if it were your personal emails that were published on a public web site like this?
      - rue 16y ago
        Just on the off-chance that you are serious: it is of the utmost importance that the owner is a government, not a private person. The argument is that the government is keeping secrets from its people without the people being able to change that by normal means. You are also incorrect about Wikileaks stealing any documents. They are only publishing.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        billmcneale 16y ago
        Bullshit, these documents don't belong to them, which is why most ISP's are refusing to host them. I also happen to find that not everything the government is doing should be public, even in democracies like the US. If you think that 100% transparency is a requirement, you really have no clue how the world of diplomacy is working. A certain amount of privacy is necessary, just like it's necessary to keep the salaries of employees secret to a certain extent in companies. Chaos would ensue otherwise. I'm all for airing dirty private dealings and scandals that the government is doing, but the way Wikileaks is doing it is wrong.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]

DougBTX 16y ago

Well, that's the point. They don't want you considering their secrets.

billmcneale 16y ago

WikiLeaks is violating the terms of service of most of the companies they are trying to use, so their accounts get shut down. This has nothing to do with censorship nor giving in to political pressure, stop seeing conspiracies everywhere.