4 ms·

Wikileaks used to be something, then Assange decided to filter leaks based on whatever biases he felt that day. He alienated a lot of his initial supporters doi

Wikileaks used to be something, then Assange decided to filter leaks based on whatever biases he felt that day. He alienated a lot of his initial supporters doing this, focusing only on leaking content from "the west." Later fully engaging with state sponsored hackers to meddle in the US election[1] while again ignoring any leaks about Russia[2] and friends. As far as I can tell there is nothing left of Wikileaks, its just Assange now. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=orig https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=... >"if you have anything hillary related we (Wikileaks) want it in the next tweo(sic) days prefable(sic) because the Democratic National Convention is approaching.." [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... >WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy. >“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time. >By June 2016, Assange had threatened to dump files on Clinton that would be damaging to her campaign prospects. A month later, on July 22, WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of emails out of the Democratic National Committee — preceding the massive dumps in October of emails belonging to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. >In late August 2016, when WikiLeaks’s Clinton disclosures were in full swing, Assange said he had information on Trump but that it wasn’t worth publishing. (In a message to FP, WikiLeaks now says the organization “received no original documents on the campaign that did not turn out to be already public.”) Weird that data "already being public" didn't stop Wikileaks from forwarding the content before when it came from Russian backed fronts: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 >@wikileaks >Pro-Russia hacker site (or front) "Cyber Berkut" publishes alleged links between Ukraine and Clinton

ganzuul 6y ago
You sound as warmblooded as a snake. Got any facts to back up these claims with prosecutor?
- mellosouls 6y ago
  You sound as warmblooded as a snake. What's with the abuse?
- thatlongthrow1 6y ago
  >You sound as warmblooded as a snake. Yea you are keeping it real civil there huh. I can tell you are here for honest debate and won't just move the goalposts or start with personal attacks again. >Got any facts https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    The Russian cache was eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny. ...with no f#@*ing link to the "eventually quietly published" material so we may examine it for ourselves! Does this material actually exist?! FP is truly a useless excuse for journalism!
Traster 6y ago
Every account of Assange shows a deeply flawed man. Even the generous ones - and whilst he was painted as a freedom fighter for a short period, I'm not convinced that was ever due to anything more than his agenda accidentally aligning with pro government accountability campaigners for a very short time. Also, it seems unlikely there was ever anything to wikileaks beyond Assange - that's certainly what his colleagues from the early days say. Just a man with many different sock-puppet accounts.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I find this fascinating. You excuse a state apparatus who you are responsible for as a democratic voter. That state apparatus had clear interests in a certain region and fabricated evidence to justify a war. And you moan about character flaws of someone who helped get evidence of misbehavior to the public? Seriously? No other problems? edit: You know that intelligence agencies try to discredit dissidents and make up fake evidence, do you?
  - Traster 6y ago
    Sorry what? At what point did i excuse anything the state has done? I didn't even mention the state, I talked about Assange. Also, I'm not moaning about him, I'm just talking candidly about who he is, and that's not based on some massive government conspiracy its based on the accounts of the people who have worked with him - people who also risked their livelihoods to publish the early leaks.
  - simion314 6y ago
    As a non US person is clear that his support in US fall because of Russia-Trump business (I have no idea if that was clarified by an investigation or it was suppressed) anyway the hypocrisy is clear: "We like lacks about corruption in Russia or China abuses but if you upset my favorite politicians then justice and laws are irrelevant, we can find some bullshit reason to suicide you or put you in prison". what is extremely disappointing is UK and Sweeden authorities abuses revealed by UN , I did not expect them to still be ass kissing US so deep.
tsimionescu 6y ago
So not only are Assange and the people who gave him information supposed to risk their lives to bring these things out to the public, they are also supposed to do it in an objective balanced manner? Facts are facts. As long as they are printing true facts, they can only be doing good, even if they are only printing the truth about one particular country. Even if they were only printing leaks from a single policital party in one country (which is not the case), as long as all that they are printing is true, they are helping much more than they are hurting. If you know that Russianoor Chinese or whatever else leaks exist, and if you have enough access to know that they are also true and that WikiLeaks refused to print them, why don't you print them yourself?
- macspoofing 6y ago
  I don't think that's what OP meant. At one point, I also thought WikiLeaks was going to be a new type of internet-era news organization pushing for full transparency, regardless of the target. I was disappointed when it turned out they were aimed solely at discrediting America and would editorialize and time their drops for maximum damage. They decided to become that kind of an organization, and they lost credibility in my and many other people's eyes. >Facts are facts. No. Facts are never enough. "The Sun sets in the west" is a true fact ... that is compatible with both the heliocentric and geocentric models of our solar system. Facts always need to be contextualized in some narrative or ideology before they are useful (for a specific purpose). True facts can be used to lie about the greater context. That's why objectivity and fairness is so important for news organizations. WikiLeaks is a dishonest organization.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Any government discredits itself when it commits horrible acts, like torture. When these actions become public, their reputation suffers, that's right and proper. > Facts always need to be contextualized in some narrative or ideology Like we contextualized Covid19 in Republican ideology to refuse to wear masks? Facts stand for themselves, ideology is harfull.
    - 6y ago
34679 6y ago
Reporting about western countries isn't expected to land you in a jail cell or early grave, as is the case with Russia and China.

ganzuul 6y ago

You sound as warmblooded as a snake. Got any facts to back up these claims with prosecutor?

mellosouls 6y ago
You sound as warmblooded as a snake. What's with the abuse?
thatlongthrow1 6y ago
>You sound as warmblooded as a snake. Yea you are keeping it real civil there huh. I can tell you are here for honest debate and won't just move the goalposts or start with personal attacks again. >Got any facts https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  The Russian cache was eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny. ...with no f#@*ing link to the "eventually quietly published" material so we may examine it for ourselves! Does this material actually exist?! FP is truly a useless excuse for journalism!

Traster 6y ago

Every account of Assange shows a deeply flawed man. Even the generous ones - and whilst he was painted as a freedom fighter for a short period, I'm not convinced that was ever due to anything more than his agenda accidentally aligning with pro government accountability campaigners for a very short time. Also, it seems unlikely there was ever anything to wikileaks beyond Assange - that's certainly what his colleagues from the early days say. Just a man with many different sock-puppet accounts.

raxxorrax 6y ago
I find this fascinating. You excuse a state apparatus who you are responsible for as a democratic voter. That state apparatus had clear interests in a certain region and fabricated evidence to justify a war. And you moan about character flaws of someone who helped get evidence of misbehavior to the public? Seriously? No other problems? edit: You know that intelligence agencies try to discredit dissidents and make up fake evidence, do you?
- Traster 6y ago
  Sorry what? At what point did i excuse anything the state has done? I didn't even mention the state, I talked about Assange. Also, I'm not moaning about him, I'm just talking candidly about who he is, and that's not based on some massive government conspiracy its based on the accounts of the people who have worked with him - people who also risked their livelihoods to publish the early leaks.
- simion314 6y ago
  As a non US person is clear that his support in US fall because of Russia-Trump business (I have no idea if that was clarified by an investigation or it was suppressed) anyway the hypocrisy is clear: "We like lacks about corruption in Russia or China abuses but if you upset my favorite politicians then justice and laws are irrelevant, we can find some bullshit reason to suicide you or put you in prison". what is extremely disappointing is UK and Sweeden authorities abuses revealed by UN , I did not expect them to still be ass kissing US so deep.

tsimionescu 6y ago

So not only are Assange and the people who gave him information supposed to risk their lives to bring these things out to the public, they are also supposed to do it in an objective balanced manner? Facts are facts. As long as they are printing true facts, they can only be doing good, even if they are only printing the truth about one particular country. Even if they were only printing leaks from a single policital party in one country (which is not the case), as long as all that they are printing is true, they are helping much more than they are hurting. If you know that Russianoor Chinese or whatever else leaks exist, and if you have enough access to know that they are also true and that WikiLeaks refused to print them, why don't you print them yourself?

macspoofing 6y ago
I don't think that's what OP meant. At one point, I also thought WikiLeaks was going to be a new type of internet-era news organization pushing for full transparency, regardless of the target. I was disappointed when it turned out they were aimed solely at discrediting America and would editorialize and time their drops for maximum damage. They decided to become that kind of an organization, and they lost credibility in my and many other people's eyes. >Facts are facts. No. Facts are never enough. "The Sun sets in the west" is a true fact ... that is compatible with both the heliocentric and geocentric models of our solar system. Facts always need to be contextualized in some narrative or ideology before they are useful (for a specific purpose). True facts can be used to lie about the greater context. That's why objectivity and fairness is so important for news organizations. WikiLeaks is a dishonest organization.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Any government discredits itself when it commits horrible acts, like torture. When these actions become public, their reputation suffers, that's right and proper. > Facts always need to be contextualized in some narrative or ideology Like we contextualized Covid19 in Republican ideology to refuse to wear masks? Facts stand for themselves, ideology is harfull.
  - 6y ago

34679 6y ago

Reporting about western countries isn't expected to land you in a jail cell or early grave, as is the case with Russia and China.