3 ms·

The idea that WL is responsible for Clinton's loss - rather than her being a terrible candidate - is laughable. To credit Assange with Trump's election is a com

The idea that WL is responsible for Clinton's loss - rather than her being a terrible candidate - is laughable. To credit Assange with Trump's election is a complete joke - not least because the same people attacking him for releasing Clinton / Podesta / DNC emails have spent the past several years utterly failing to take stock of the reasons they lost. I say all this as a non-US observer. The US' media and political figures are completely unfit for purpose.

viivaux 7y ago
Seconded. Meanwhile, there has been a simultaneous attack on outlets that might actually spit the truth out there: the recent "changes to Facebook's algorithm" resulting in outlets like MPN, Democracy Now, and Wikileaks go from regular 20k shares to the 7-900 range practically overnight is suspicious in the extreme.
brohee 7y ago
The election outcome is obviously much more multifactor than that, but that doesn't change the fact that Assange was coordinating with Gucifer 2.0 against Clinton. Wikileaks wasn't neutral in that election.
- hallihax 7y ago
  This is just a spurious argument - and setting aside the Guccifer 2.0 sub-plot to the whole scam - Wikileaks has absolutely no requirement to be neutral. Their job is to publish things powerful people don't want published. That's it. Why should WL be on your side? Why shouldn't WL release info damaging to Clinton? It's hardly Assange's fault the US keeps committing war crimes and engaging in blatant corruption, is it?
  - brohee 7y ago
    The issue is that in this specific case, it was willingly publishing things powerful people wanted to be published. (Also I'm euro and don't have a dog in this fight, I just lost all respect for Assange and Wikileaks).
    - hallihax 7y ago
      You're confusing correlation with causation. It doesn't matter who or what stood to gain from Clinton's emails being published; unless you can demonstrate an illegal conspiracy (which you can't), there's nothing to say. WL did their job, nothing more.

viivaux 7y ago

Seconded. Meanwhile, there has been a simultaneous attack on outlets that might actually spit the truth out there: the recent "changes to Facebook's algorithm" resulting in outlets like MPN, Democracy Now, and Wikileaks go from regular 20k shares to the 7-900 range practically overnight is suspicious in the extreme.

brohee 7y ago

The election outcome is obviously much more multifactor than that, but that doesn't change the fact that Assange was coordinating with Gucifer 2.0 against Clinton. Wikileaks wasn't neutral in that election.

hallihax 7y ago
This is just a spurious argument - and setting aside the Guccifer 2.0 sub-plot to the whole scam - Wikileaks has absolutely no requirement to be neutral. Their job is to publish things powerful people don't want published. That's it. Why should WL be on your side? Why shouldn't WL release info damaging to Clinton? It's hardly Assange's fault the US keeps committing war crimes and engaging in blatant corruption, is it?
- brohee 7y ago
  The issue is that in this specific case, it was willingly publishing things powerful people wanted to be published. (Also I'm euro and don't have a dog in this fight, I just lost all respect for Assange and Wikileaks).
  - hallihax 7y ago
    You're confusing correlation with causation. It doesn't matter who or what stood to gain from Clinton's emails being published; unless you can demonstrate an illegal conspiracy (which you can't), there's nothing to say. WL did their job, nothing more.