6 ms·

This is a badly uninformed opinion

Applejinx 5y ago
Not at all: from what I've seen, that sort of thing doesn't have to start out as intentional nefariousness. We've just got some state actors who've developed real skill and determination at twisting all sorts of existing entities to their ends: this is considerably easier in the service of chaos politics than it would be if they were trying to set up an orderly, top-down spy network or some such thing. You don't have to start OUT as a honeypot or a tool of foreign intelligence. It would be a pretty lousy intelligence service that had to start with pre-existing cooperation and alliance. Much better to work at twisting things, and then rely on rationalization and perhaps back it up with threat and intimidation. There's nothing new about any of this, it's just done with flair, ingenuity and determination. Or has been: I think there's a limit to how far that can go.
anothernewdude 5y ago
Look to cryptome for what it would've looked like if it wasn't an engine for Assange's ego. The people who just wanted to host leaks left more than a decade ago. The org admitted to pushing it's own political positions. No idea why people defend the thing. All they publish now is the result of Russian hacks. And he's not a journalist.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  Accusing them of pushing political positions and the saying they're not journalists feels like conflicting arguments in this day and age. It's also difficult to appear politically neutral when publishing truths that are (or should be, but aren't) existentially inconvenient to any particular person or group.
  - anothernewdude 5y ago
    It's not difficult. Just don't editorialise. Leaks are the easiest case. Just host everything. Which is why I mention Cryptome, liveleaks would've been an example too. They haven't done that. They've been selective, they've pushed agendas with their accounts, and they've sat on other leaks that other places haven't.

Not at all: from what I've seen, that sort of thing doesn't have to start out as intentional nefariousness. We've just got some state actors who've developed real skill and determination at twisting all sorts of existing entities to their ends: this is considerably easier in the service of chaos politics than it would be if they were trying to set up an orderly, top-down spy network or some such thing. You don't have to start OUT as a honeypot or a tool of foreign intelligence. It would be a pretty lousy intelligence service that had to start with pre-existing cooperation and alliance. Much better to work at twisting things, and then rely on rationalization and perhaps back it up with threat and intimidation. There's nothing new about any of this, it's just done with flair, ingenuity and determination. Or has been: I think there's a limit to how far that can go.

anothernewdude 5y ago

Look to cryptome for what it would've looked like if it wasn't an engine for Assange's ego. The people who just wanted to host leaks left more than a decade ago. The org admitted to pushing it's own political positions. No idea why people defend the thing. All they publish now is the result of Russian hacks. And he's not a journalist.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Accusing them of pushing political positions and the saying they're not journalists feels like conflicting arguments in this day and age. It's also difficult to appear politically neutral when publishing truths that are (or should be, but aren't) existentially inconvenient to any particular person or group.
- anothernewdude 5y ago
  It's not difficult. Just don't editorialise. Leaks are the easiest case. Just host everything. Which is why I mention Cryptome, liveleaks would've been an example too. They haven't done that. They've been selective, they've pushed agendas with their accounts, and they've sat on other leaks that other places haven't.