5 ms·

I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military's abuses in t

I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military's abuses in the middle East. Most of the people in this group were Democrats or otherwise on the Left. They cheered WikiLeaks and loved that it was exposing the abuses of a group they didn't like. Fast forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks begins publishing damaging information related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The same people who cheered WikiLeaks as it published very damaging information about the US Military now condemned it because it was targeting someone they actually supported. This was a major moment of clarity and realization for me. It showed me that those who are quick to use ideals to defend their positions ("freedom of information is good, it exposes the US' crimes!") will just as quickly discard those ideals when they stop working in their own interest ("WikiLeaks should not be publishing damaging information about Clinton!"). I was disgusted, because these people were so quick to use a moralistic position built upon high ideals to attack the US but they were themselves absolutely bereft of a true commitment to ideals. Within a few weeks the group's attitude on WikiLeaks shifted from gratitude and respect to hatred. When I pointed this out, I was kicked out of the group.

spaced-out 7y ago
The reason many people turned on Wikileaks was because he clearly sided with Trump in 2016. He released the info he had on Hillary to damage her campaign, even though it didn't show anything illegal, yet he refused to publish the documents he had on Trump. People sided with him because they believed he was impartial, and turned away from him when it was clear he wasn't.
- corporate_shi11 7y ago
  Except he was clearly "siding" against the US military throughout his early history. He was never impartial (whatever that means), people just happened to like the side he appeared to be on.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > People sided with him because they believed he was impartial, and turned away from him when it was clear he wasn't. He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here.
  - NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
    >He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here. Good quality newspapers tend to separate reporting and editorials/opinion fairly clearly, but have always contained both. It is also wholly common for newspapers to endorse candidates for high political office within the editorial context. It is a matter of record that newspapers and magazines endorsed Clinton over other candidates by a massive margin in the 2016 elections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_... I don't know where the idea that the news media is supposed to be a purely-objective fact source comes from, to be honest. This seems to be some kind of straw man. The charge against Wikileaks, such as it is, is that while the material disclosed might be verbatim, it is obviously still subject to the editorial decisions of its leadership about which material to seek out and to disclose.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      What Wikileaks revealed went far beyond endorsing a candidate. For example: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-colluded-on-questions-for-trump-cruz https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-col...
    - corporate_shi11 7y ago
      Most of the "news" reported by mainstream newspapers and news stations is almost across the board anti-Trump and anti-conservative. It is extremely biased, but tries to keep up the appearance of being unbiased, which is part of why the unaware masses consider them mainstream and standard bearers of truth. What WikiLeaks revealed was the extent of this bias. If what the mainstream news networks and their executives are doing is acceptable, then what's the problem with WikiLeaks revealing it? The problem is that opponents of the Right understand how damaging it is to the image of the mainstream news networks - which shape the opinion of tens of millions in America and across the world - for the people to understand just how biased they really are.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Hillary's use of a private email server was extremely illegal and many people have been jailed for a long time for much less. The only reason HRC wasn't indicted was because of a heavily biased investigator and because of some flimsy claim that there wasn't a prosecutor that would take the case. Assange has said many times he would have also published anything negative about Trump if he received anything. He didn't, and the proof of that is that anyone leaking to WikiLeaks could easily go to anyone else with the same information. Please stop spreading lies, propaganda, and misinformation.
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    > Hillary's use of a private email server was extremely illegal Ever single government entity with the power to rule on this has said otherwise. You are the one spreading "lies, propaganda and misinformation." Tell me, if Hillary broke so many laws, why wasn't she ever charged? You do realize there were multiple investigations that concluded it did not meet a level of criminality?
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      USA federal prosecution is an extremely capricious and unfair process. That HRC is wealthy enough to hire good lawyers is sufficient explanation for the fact that she was not charged. It may not be the only explanation...
    - whamlastxmas 7y ago
      There is only a single government entity and it was led by a single person who had the authority to investigate and indict Hillary. That you are suggesting otherwise speaks to either your dishonesty in discussing this or lack of information. I explained why she wasn't charged. I'm done here.
    - mam2 7y ago
      because the emails were deleted and there were no proof anymore of how sensitive it was. the deletion is a bigger crime
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  He didn’t refuse to publish anything on Trump.
megous 7y ago
True idealists are not that common. You know, the people that will go against peers and dispassionately explore their own and others behavior, thinking and inclinations out of some weird desire to understand the world around them more completely, or to follow some abstract ideal more consistently. I think your expectations of some random FB group were a bit too high in the first place.

spaced-out 7y ago

The reason many people turned on Wikileaks was because he clearly sided with Trump in 2016. He released the info he had on Hillary to damage her campaign, even though it didn't show anything illegal, yet he refused to publish the documents he had on Trump. People sided with him because they believed he was impartial, and turned away from him when it was clear he wasn't.

corporate_shi11 7y ago
Except he was clearly "siding" against the US military throughout his early history. He was never impartial (whatever that means), people just happened to like the side he appeared to be on.
malvosenior 7y ago
> People sided with him because they believed he was impartial, and turned away from him when it was clear he wasn't. He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here.
- NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
  >He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here. Good quality newspapers tend to separate reporting and editorials/opinion fairly clearly, but have always contained both. It is also wholly common for newspapers to endorse candidates for high political office within the editorial context. It is a matter of record that newspapers and magazines endorsed Clinton over other candidates by a massive margin in the 2016 elections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_... I don't know where the idea that the news media is supposed to be a purely-objective fact source comes from, to be honest. This seems to be some kind of straw man. The charge against Wikileaks, such as it is, is that while the material disclosed might be verbatim, it is obviously still subject to the editorial decisions of its leadership about which material to seek out and to disclose.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    What Wikileaks revealed went far beyond endorsing a candidate. For example: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-colluded-on-questions-for-trump-cruz https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-col...
  - corporate_shi11 7y ago
    Most of the "news" reported by mainstream newspapers and news stations is almost across the board anti-Trump and anti-conservative. It is extremely biased, but tries to keep up the appearance of being unbiased, which is part of why the unaware masses consider them mainstream and standard bearers of truth. What WikiLeaks revealed was the extent of this bias. If what the mainstream news networks and their executives are doing is acceptable, then what's the problem with WikiLeaks revealing it? The problem is that opponents of the Right understand how damaging it is to the image of the mainstream news networks - which shape the opinion of tens of millions in America and across the world - for the people to understand just how biased they really are.
whamlastxmas 7y ago
Hillary's use of a private email server was extremely illegal and many people have been jailed for a long time for much less. The only reason HRC wasn't indicted was because of a heavily biased investigator and because of some flimsy claim that there wasn't a prosecutor that would take the case. Assange has said many times he would have also published anything negative about Trump if he received anything. He didn't, and the proof of that is that anyone leaking to WikiLeaks could easily go to anyone else with the same information. Please stop spreading lies, propaganda, and misinformation.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  > Hillary's use of a private email server was extremely illegal Ever single government entity with the power to rule on this has said otherwise. You are the one spreading "lies, propaganda and misinformation." Tell me, if Hillary broke so many laws, why wasn't she ever charged? You do realize there were multiple investigations that concluded it did not meet a level of criminality?
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    USA federal prosecution is an extremely capricious and unfair process. That HRC is wealthy enough to hire good lawyers is sufficient explanation for the fact that she was not charged. It may not be the only explanation...
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    There is only a single government entity and it was led by a single person who had the authority to investigate and indict Hillary. That you are suggesting otherwise speaks to either your dishonesty in discussing this or lack of information. I explained why she wasn't charged. I'm done here.
  - mam2 7y ago
    because the emails were deleted and there were no proof anymore of how sensitive it was. the deletion is a bigger crime
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
He didn’t refuse to publish anything on Trump.

megous 7y ago

True idealists are not that common. You know, the people that will go against peers and dispassionately explore their own and others behavior, thinking and inclinations out of some weird desire to understand the world around them more completely, or to follow some abstract ideal more consistently. I think your expectations of some random FB group were a bit too high in the first place.