7 ms·

> I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to

> I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process. WRT not supporting what Assange did, I didn't notice anyone (as I type) saying anything specific about it, negative or otherwise.

pydry 6y ago
Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings (e.g. why does X think they should be given one of the only 5 spots made available to see the trial that affects everybody).
- burger_moon 6y ago
  > Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial. Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existed before I started coming here. Hn does a pretty good job of being off topic in threads but it's the nastiness of the comments that degrades the quality of conversation (I myself am guilty of this too, and I need to work on that).
  - marvin 6y ago
    Assange threads are truly something else. A few years ago, most of the commentary was about how he didn't clean up his cat's poop at the Ecuadorian embassy and therefore, by implication, he deserved whatever he got. Either the disinformation campaign has been spectacularly successful, a lot of HN commenters are truly daft enough to let alleged cat hygiene decide their opinion on a person's fate, or there is really some deliberate misinformation going on specifically in these threads. Maybe a combination of the three. Regardless, it disheartens me greatly to see the state power of the US used like this. Truly removes the veil of supposedly unailenable democratic rights.
demarq 6y ago
> I'm not seeing that in the comments I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of: "I'm not an Assange supporter But ..." in fact you're comment is really no different: > not supporting what Assange did, I didn't Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact, nobody is arguing against that I think. What's at stake here is whether the crime was justifiable and that it did more good (in exposing the US' war crimes) than bad (sharing state secrets and possibly risking informants). Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    In the US, up until this point, publishing government secrets has not been a crime. It is a right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    >They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact. Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with the Assange case is the Russia-gate propaganda added him to the list, so now a large swath of people who would normally support him now still off the cuff beleive he "helped Trump" by "working with the Russians" (or some variation thereof), and because the Russiagate narrative is now so entrenched in the left, it causes a huge cognitive dissonance where they are more likely to choose the mob/tribe over principle. It's worth noting that this can also be considered a survival technique in this cancel culture world, so I try not to judge too harshly, it just gets tiring hearing the disinfo about Assange repeated ad nauseum.

pydry 6y ago

Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings (e.g. why does X think they should be given one of the only 5 spots made available to see the trial that affects everybody).

burger_moon 6y ago
> Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial. Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existed before I started coming here. Hn does a pretty good job of being off topic in threads but it's the nastiness of the comments that degrades the quality of conversation (I myself am guilty of this too, and I need to work on that).
- marvin 6y ago
  Assange threads are truly something else. A few years ago, most of the commentary was about how he didn't clean up his cat's poop at the Ecuadorian embassy and therefore, by implication, he deserved whatever he got. Either the disinformation campaign has been spectacularly successful, a lot of HN commenters are truly daft enough to let alleged cat hygiene decide their opinion on a person's fate, or there is really some deliberate misinformation going on specifically in these threads. Maybe a combination of the three. Regardless, it disheartens me greatly to see the state power of the US used like this. Truly removes the veil of supposedly unailenable democratic rights.

demarq 6y ago

> I'm not seeing that in the comments I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of: "I'm not an Assange supporter But ..." in fact you're comment is really no different: > not supporting what Assange did, I didn't Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact, nobody is arguing against that I think. What's at stake here is whether the crime was justifiable and that it did more good (in exposing the US' war crimes) than bad (sharing state secrets and possibly risking informants). Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  In the US, up until this point, publishing government secrets has not been a crime. It is a right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  >They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact. Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with the Assange case is the Russia-gate propaganda added him to the list, so now a large swath of people who would normally support him now still off the cuff beleive he "helped Trump" by "working with the Russians" (or some variation thereof), and because the Russiagate narrative is now so entrenched in the left, it causes a huge cognitive dissonance where they are more likely to choose the mob/tribe over principle. It's worth noting that this can also be considered a survival technique in this cancel culture world, so I try not to judge too harshly, it just gets tiring hearing the disinfo about Assange repeated ad nauseum.