4 ms·

"I think Julian Assange would've been a much better choice." I have to wonder - Assange has only received serious press attention for the last few weeks. Isn't

by edanm 16y ago

"I think Julian Assange would've been a much better choice." I have to wonder - Assange has only received serious press attention for the last few weeks. Isn't this just a case of him being more fresh in our minds? Asked another way, looking back 3 years from now, who will most people has made a bigger impact on the world?

robryan 16y ago
Depends, Wikileaks at least seems to credibly have a stack of incriminating stuff on the big banks. Who know's what else people will pass along to them now it's been shown how effectively they can capture the worlds attention.
- hugh3 16y ago
  If I had some important secret documents to leak which provided evidence of wrongdoing on the part of government officials, I'd leak it to the New York Times or other major newspaper. They're the best place to go for stuff like that -- they have a huge readership, a staff who will dig into the surrounding issues, and a heck of a strong reputation (as opposed to ugly-website-run-by-creepy-alleged-rapist). I'd only leak to wikileaks if I (for some reason) wanted to leak ten gigabytes of randomly selected secret documents of no particular consequence. Wikileaks is the open mic night of leaking -- it's where you find the random crap, not the big stories.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    The NY Times would very likely not run with your leak. That's why WikiLeaks came to being.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      No, they frequently run leaks which they think are in the public interest. And they have pretty low standards for what they think is in the public interest -- ultimately they just need to be able to come up with a good justification for believing it might be in the public interest, since their primary purpose is to sell newspapers. They would refuse to leak random diplomatic cables which don't show any wrongdoing by anybody, though. (Although they're quite happy to publish a story about them if someone else is responsible for the leaking.)
  - pessimizer 16y ago
    Wikileaks' reputation is impeccable: it does what it says on the package, and has been the source for nearly uncountable major newspaper articles over the past few years because of the complete accuracy of its information. The NYT had Judith Miller.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Actually it doesn't do what it says on the package, because it's not actually a wiki any more, is it? If I were the wikimedia foundation I'd be complaining about that. edit: And on the point of accuracy... it would be an interesting prank to leak some fake documents to Wikileaks and see if you can get 'em to make a big fanfare about them. Preferably you'd fake enough documents so that they wouldn't really check them, and it would be several days into the media cycle before folks started to notice that some of the most incriminating memos were sent between parties such as "I. P. Freely" and "Amanda Hugnkiss".
      - michaelchisari 16y ago
        it would be an interesting prank to leak some fake documents to Wikileaks and see if you can get 'em to make a big fanfare about them. It's interesting that you think that they aren't already constantly being bombarded with false information via intelligence agencies as a tactic to discredit them.
        hugh3 16y ago
        It's interesting that you think that is an annoying rhetorical tactic. Instead of explicitly suggesting P, which might require you to support the proposition P, you instead sneer at the possibility that someone might think not-P. Actually in this case my main reason for believing not P is that they haven't been successfully trolled yet. If an intelligence agency did attempt this trick then they'd almost certainly succeed, because the Wikileaks crew are mere mortals and quite capable of being fooled by a clever fake. If any intelligence agencies are reading this, though, and feel like offering me a job in the wikileaks-trolling department I'd be happy to accept it.
  - robwgibbons 16y ago
    You're completely missing the point. You wouldn't leak to The New York Times because they have no secure mechanism of any kind for leaking. WikiLeaks is not just a two-bit news outlet looking for stories. They continue to maintain one of the most innovative and secure systems in the world for leaking sensitive materials.
    - blasdel 16y ago
      It is to laugh! https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/wikileak/ https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/wikil... Assange has repeatedly let his SSL certificates and PGP keys expire, had has had a series of completely insecure submission systems that have been disabled most of the time since he started whoring for donations a couple years ago.
l0nwlf 16y ago
> Asked another way, looking back 3 years from now, who will most people has made a bigger impact on the world? This is about this year IMO. Also think about masses, people from afghanistan and pakistan who don't know/care about FB knows about Assagne thanks to he being given high coverage in world media.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I'm really not sure what people in Afghanistan know or how much "World Media" they consume, but I'm pretty sure more of them would have heard of Facebook than Julian Assange. edit: Changed name because apparently I get modded down for referring to Mr Assange as "Rapey McRapeHair"
  - cubix 16y ago
    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/12/10/1291940038001/Pakistani-WikiLeaks-flag--006.jpg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...
    - hugh3 16y ago
      How about this? http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J2I920100520 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J2I920100520 Caption: "Supporters of Islamic political party Jamaat-e-Islami protest in Peshawar against an online competition to draw pictures of Prophet Mohammad on Facebook which Muslims deem blasphemous May 20, 2010"
      - netaddict 16y ago
        That article is not about Afghanistan but Pakistan.
        hugh3 16y ago
        I thought we were discussing Afghanistan and Pakistan like it says above.
nextparadigms 16y ago
If all goes accordingly, definitely Wikileaks. Imagine a world a fea years from now where every single country, and perhaps even cities have their own wikileaks site to keep politicians honest without doing bad things behind people's backs. I'd definitely say that will have a much bigger impact. Besides what has Zuckerbeg doen this year that he hasn't done a year before?
- hugh3 16y ago
  You've always been able to leak stuff that matters to the media. Wikileaks's main innovation is publishing leaks of stuff that don't matter.
- ChRoss 16y ago
  I would only see chaos. Politics are dirty in nature. When you go into politics, basically, you should be ready to dirty your hand. I wonder how Wikileaks would make politician honest. I correlate honest with lies. What Wikileaks exposed are not lies, they are secret data/info.
brandong 16y ago
Exactly. Assange's influence has only become widely discussed within the last month. It seems he is more likely to be on track to be POTY in 2011 than to have been skipped over entirely.

by edanm 16y ago

robryan 16y ago

Depends, Wikileaks at least seems to credibly have a stack of incriminating stuff on the big banks. Who know's what else people will pass along to them now it's been shown how effectively they can capture the worlds attention.

hugh3 16y ago
If I had some important secret documents to leak which provided evidence of wrongdoing on the part of government officials, I'd leak it to the New York Times or other major newspaper. They're the best place to go for stuff like that -- they have a huge readership, a staff who will dig into the surrounding issues, and a heck of a strong reputation (as opposed to ugly-website-run-by-creepy-alleged-rapist). I'd only leak to wikileaks if I (for some reason) wanted to leak ten gigabytes of randomly selected secret documents of no particular consequence. Wikileaks is the open mic night of leaking -- it's where you find the random crap, not the big stories.
- jonknee 16y ago
  The NY Times would very likely not run with your leak. That's why WikiLeaks came to being.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    No, they frequently run leaks which they think are in the public interest. And they have pretty low standards for what they think is in the public interest -- ultimately they just need to be able to come up with a good justification for believing it might be in the public interest, since their primary purpose is to sell newspapers. They would refuse to leak random diplomatic cables which don't show any wrongdoing by anybody, though. (Although they're quite happy to publish a story about them if someone else is responsible for the leaking.)
- pessimizer 16y ago
  Wikileaks' reputation is impeccable: it does what it says on the package, and has been the source for nearly uncountable major newspaper articles over the past few years because of the complete accuracy of its information. The NYT had Judith Miller.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Actually it doesn't do what it says on the package, because it's not actually a wiki any more, is it? If I were the wikimedia foundation I'd be complaining about that. edit: And on the point of accuracy... it would be an interesting prank to leak some fake documents to Wikileaks and see if you can get 'em to make a big fanfare about them. Preferably you'd fake enough documents so that they wouldn't really check them, and it would be several days into the media cycle before folks started to notice that some of the most incriminating memos were sent between parties such as "I. P. Freely" and "Amanda Hugnkiss".
    - michaelchisari 16y ago
      it would be an interesting prank to leak some fake documents to Wikileaks and see if you can get 'em to make a big fanfare about them. It's interesting that you think that they aren't already constantly being bombarded with false information via intelligence agencies as a tactic to discredit them.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        It's interesting that you think that is an annoying rhetorical tactic. Instead of explicitly suggesting P, which might require you to support the proposition P, you instead sneer at the possibility that someone might think not-P. Actually in this case my main reason for believing not P is that they haven't been successfully trolled yet. If an intelligence agency did attempt this trick then they'd almost certainly succeed, because the Wikileaks crew are mere mortals and quite capable of being fooled by a clever fake. If any intelligence agencies are reading this, though, and feel like offering me a job in the wikileaks-trolling department I'd be happy to accept it.
- robwgibbons 16y ago
  You're completely missing the point. You wouldn't leak to The New York Times because they have no secure mechanism of any kind for leaking. WikiLeaks is not just a two-bit news outlet looking for stories. They continue to maintain one of the most innovative and secure systems in the world for leaking sensitive materials.
  - blasdel 16y ago
    It is to laugh! https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/wikileak/ https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/wikil... Assange has repeatedly let his SSL certificates and PGP keys expire, had has had a series of completely insecure submission systems that have been disabled most of the time since he started whoring for donations a couple years ago.

l0nwlf 16y ago

> Asked another way, looking back 3 years from now, who will most people has made a bigger impact on the world? This is about this year IMO. Also think about masses, people from afghanistan and pakistan who don't know/care about FB knows about Assagne thanks to he being given high coverage in world media.

hugh3 16y ago
I'm really not sure what people in Afghanistan know or how much "World Media" they consume, but I'm pretty sure more of them would have heard of Facebook than Julian Assange. edit: Changed name because apparently I get modded down for referring to Mr Assange as "Rapey McRapeHair"
- cubix 16y ago
  http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/12/10/1291940038001/Pakistani-WikiLeaks-flag--006.jpg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...
  - hugh3 16y ago
    How about this? http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J2I920100520 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J2I920100520 Caption: "Supporters of Islamic political party Jamaat-e-Islami protest in Peshawar against an online competition to draw pictures of Prophet Mohammad on Facebook which Muslims deem blasphemous May 20, 2010"
    - netaddict 16y ago
      That article is not about Afghanistan but Pakistan.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        I thought we were discussing Afghanistan and Pakistan like it says above.

nextparadigms 16y ago

If all goes accordingly, definitely Wikileaks. Imagine a world a fea years from now where every single country, and perhaps even cities have their own wikileaks site to keep politicians honest without doing bad things behind people's backs. I'd definitely say that will have a much bigger impact. Besides what has Zuckerbeg doen this year that he hasn't done a year before?

hugh3 16y ago
You've always been able to leak stuff that matters to the media. Wikileaks's main innovation is publishing leaks of stuff that don't matter.
ChRoss 16y ago
I would only see chaos. Politics are dirty in nature. When you go into politics, basically, you should be ready to dirty your hand. I wonder how Wikileaks would make politician honest. I correlate honest with lies. What Wikileaks exposed are not lies, they are secret data/info.

brandong 16y ago

Exactly. Assange's influence has only become widely discussed within the last month. It seems he is more likely to be on track to be POTY in 2011 than to have been skipped over entirely.