4 ms·

My personal theory is that Assange is just a too big a rebel. He is too radical, so radical, that we cannot understand him, he is out of Overton window. Perhaps

by js8 7y ago

My personal theory is that Assange is just a too big a rebel. He is too radical, so radical, that we cannot understand him, he is out of Overton window. Perhaps to the point of being a hypocrite, by necessity. Compare him with Edward Snowden. Snowden has moderate opinions compared to Assange. With that, he is much more readable than Assange by general public, and so he is better shielded.

peter_retief 7y ago
Is the truth radical?
- mda 7y ago
  Does he represent the truth?
  - buboard 7y ago
    yes. did he publish lies?
    - sgammon 7y ago
      publishing only one side of the story is a lie, or do you think Russian intelligence asked him to be fully honest?
      - buboard 7y ago
        > publishing only one side of the story is a lie while biased, it's not in itself a lie
        peteradio 7y ago
        Lying by omission is certainly a thing. Selective publishing is similar and while not technically a lie, is dishonest. I think you'd have to be naive to trust wikileaks is impartial.
        buboard 7y ago
        there's a confusion of terms here. "Lying by omission" is possible if the source claims something and uses half the truth to support it. Assange didn't claim anything, he just released some facts X. The fact that he did not release stuff about the other side (which supposedly exists?) is totally irrelevant to the validity of facts X. > naive to trust wikileaks is impartial. Also irrelevant. Nobody should be imprisoned for being partial!
- kleer001 7y ago
  Yes to those deep in denial, tied up in a million cognitive traps and logical fallacies, wedded to ideologies and so deeply invested in something other than truth and or Truth.
me_me_me 7y ago
This has nothing to do with what they did. And both of them stood up to power and paid price for it. It doesn't matter who they are and what kind of ice-cream flavor they like. This kind of thinking is exactly what state propaganda pushes. Create smear campaign then shift the discourse to talking about the whistle blowers and not about the actual whistle blowing. Notice how often 'Assange is rapist' and 'Snowden is a russian spy' narrative are almost all that ever comes up on media coverage. Or the talk about leaks is derailed by someone to those points.
- js8 7y ago
  I agree, it has to do with their opinions rather than deeds. Just FYI - I don't believe either is Russian agent and I do believe they both are fundamentally right (in the sense of moral values rather than correctness). I was just answering the question in the title, I wasn't saying that to diss on them. But they are different characters. Assange is much more revolutionary at heart than Snowden (in the Cyberspace Manifesto sense). And it hurts him more, in my opinion, because the society is not ready (if it's ever gonna be). On the other hand, Snowden's opinions are pretty moderate. He doesn't want a revolutionary society where all information wants to be free. He just wants a better oversight of secret services. So he's more relatable as a result.
buboard 7y ago
> he is better shielded He's shielded by russia. Were he in any other country he'd be in a US cell alone. Funny how one has to hide in Russia to preach encryption!
- majewsky 7y ago
  It was the US that put him in that place. He was grounded at Moscow Airport while trying to transfer to another plane because his passport was invalidated midflight.
forgottenpass 7y ago
>He is too radical, so radical, that we cannot understand him, he is out of Overton window. My introduction to wikileaks was when it was first covered on slashdot, before any leaks with any relevancy to me. At that time the stated mission statement was to publish all of the leaked documents after authenticating them in an effort to subject secret actions of government to more scrutiny. And make those in government more cautions about what they'll do even with the cover of secrecy. It was created by people from the anglosphere, therefore the US was always going to be a large part of their focus. No matter how much more deserving of criticism other countries may be. With that as a throughline (and even back then Assange had a bit of reputation as a wanker), I've never been _that_ surprised with the way the project has acted over the years. If my only exposure to Assange was the coverage whenever he made the news, I would find the whole thing impenetrable. It's one of the things that first made me start seeing how poorly thrown together news narratives really are.

by js8 7y ago

peter_retief 7y ago

Is the truth radical?

mda 7y ago
Does he represent the truth?
- buboard 7y ago
  yes. did he publish lies?
  - sgammon 7y ago
    publishing only one side of the story is a lie, or do you think Russian intelligence asked him to be fully honest?
    - buboard 7y ago
      > publishing only one side of the story is a lie while biased, it's not in itself a lie
      - peteradio 7y ago
        Lying by omission is certainly a thing. Selective publishing is similar and while not technically a lie, is dishonest. I think you'd have to be naive to trust wikileaks is impartial.
        buboard 7y ago
        there's a confusion of terms here. "Lying by omission" is possible if the source claims something and uses half the truth to support it. Assange didn't claim anything, he just released some facts X. The fact that he did not release stuff about the other side (which supposedly exists?) is totally irrelevant to the validity of facts X. > naive to trust wikileaks is impartial. Also irrelevant. Nobody should be imprisoned for being partial!
kleer001 7y ago
Yes to those deep in denial, tied up in a million cognitive traps and logical fallacies, wedded to ideologies and so deeply invested in something other than truth and or Truth.

me_me_me 7y ago

This has nothing to do with what they did. And both of them stood up to power and paid price for it. It doesn't matter who they are and what kind of ice-cream flavor they like. This kind of thinking is exactly what state propaganda pushes. Create smear campaign then shift the discourse to talking about the whistle blowers and not about the actual whistle blowing. Notice how often 'Assange is rapist' and 'Snowden is a russian spy' narrative are almost all that ever comes up on media coverage. Or the talk about leaks is derailed by someone to those points.

js8 7y ago
I agree, it has to do with their opinions rather than deeds. Just FYI - I don't believe either is Russian agent and I do believe they both are fundamentally right (in the sense of moral values rather than correctness). I was just answering the question in the title, I wasn't saying that to diss on them. But they are different characters. Assange is much more revolutionary at heart than Snowden (in the Cyberspace Manifesto sense). And it hurts him more, in my opinion, because the society is not ready (if it's ever gonna be). On the other hand, Snowden's opinions are pretty moderate. He doesn't want a revolutionary society where all information wants to be free. He just wants a better oversight of secret services. So he's more relatable as a result.

buboard 7y ago

> he is better shielded He's shielded by russia. Were he in any other country he'd be in a US cell alone. Funny how one has to hide in Russia to preach encryption!

majewsky 7y ago
It was the US that put him in that place. He was grounded at Moscow Airport while trying to transfer to another plane because his passport was invalidated midflight.

forgottenpass 7y ago

>He is too radical, so radical, that we cannot understand him, he is out of Overton window. My introduction to wikileaks was when it was first covered on slashdot, before any leaks with any relevancy to me. At that time the stated mission statement was to publish all of the leaked documents after authenticating them in an effort to subject secret actions of government to more scrutiny. And make those in government more cautions about what they'll do even with the cover of secrecy. It was created by people from the anglosphere, therefore the US was always going to be a large part of their focus. No matter how much more deserving of criticism other countries may be. With that as a throughline (and even back then Assange had a bit of reputation as a wanker), I've never been _that_ surprised with the way the project has acted over the years. If my only exposure to Assange was the coverage whenever he made the news, I would find the whole thing impenetrable. It's one of the things that first made me start seeing how poorly thrown together news narratives really are.