3 ms·

I'm morally indifferent, even in favour of the principle of wikileaks. I'm not in favour of a leaker of US information motivated only by wanting reforms that ar

by aj700 16y ago

I'm morally indifferent, even in favour of the principle of wikileaks. I'm not in favour of a leaker of US information motivated only by wanting reforms that are pipe dreams. Freedom of speech can never extend to state secrets. In Europe, we'd never be so attached to the idea that we'd take it that far. I think we may have sacrificed a lot - eg. the ability of the net to process pre-Christmas payments, for the "gain" of providing the ability of some dick at DoD to tell us what Hillary's people think of various national dictators, or that Iraq was not 100% superbly executed. Yeah, big deal. I don't believe Assange's arrest is a conspiracy. 4chan launching all this shit may just force the net to change in some very bad ways.

naz 16y ago
It doesn't sound like you are in favour of the principle of WikiLeaks.
- aj700 16y ago
  It should continue to exist, in case someone does have something worthwhile to release. But in this case it was hardly worth it. Except for the secret sites, that WAS irresponsible. The acceptable principle of the site does not exempt its operators from the law of developed countries, and will obviously subject them to the lawlessness of undeveloped ones. Now they're threatening to take down twitter (who don't need any help in doing that!) because they are percieved to be preventing 'wikileaks' from trending. Looks increasingly like a load of kids with a ddos hammer seeing enticing nails everywhere.
  - naz 16y ago
    What law has WikiLeaks broken?
    - aj700 16y ago
      As an organisation, afaik, none. But the individuals involved could have: To issue a warrant, they must have grounds to do so - as I said, I very much doubt that the charges against Assange are simply "made up". If they are, he'll be found innocent. The reason most people don't put a principle above the idea that it is foolish to piss off The White House is because they don't have the balls to take the consequences. He seems quite happy to. Good for him. Rather him than me.

by aj700 16y ago

naz 16y ago

It doesn't sound like you are in favour of the principle of WikiLeaks.

aj700 16y ago
It should continue to exist, in case someone does have something worthwhile to release. But in this case it was hardly worth it. Except for the secret sites, that WAS irresponsible. The acceptable principle of the site does not exempt its operators from the law of developed countries, and will obviously subject them to the lawlessness of undeveloped ones. Now they're threatening to take down twitter (who don't need any help in doing that!) because they are percieved to be preventing 'wikileaks' from trending. Looks increasingly like a load of kids with a ddos hammer seeing enticing nails everywhere.
- naz 16y ago
  What law has WikiLeaks broken?
  - aj700 16y ago
    As an organisation, afaik, none. But the individuals involved could have: To issue a warrant, they must have grounds to do so - as I said, I very much doubt that the charges against Assange are simply "made up". If they are, he'll be found innocent. The reason most people don't put a principle above the idea that it is foolish to piss off The White House is because they don't have the balls to take the consequences. He seems quite happy to. Good for him. Rather him than me.