12 ms·

Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments, which is why they'r

Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments, which is why they're targeted. In fact several Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded thanks to their efforts. They've never been shown to put anyone at risk either, a testament to their careful vetting process, showing that they're responsible too. This is clearly a political attack on someone who has exposed some uncomfortable truths. Even if Assange is a criminal, which I don't think he is, there's no excuse for holding him in the manner which they are, treating him worse than the worst criminals. Finally it's been shown that the rape accusations were an orchestrated smear campaign as well.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> They've never been shown to put anyone at risk This is false. They've denied putting people at risk, but there's decent evidence that their leaks have directly shared pii and harmed large numbers of random unimportant people.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Could you share this decent evidence for us who haven't seen it before?
  - billyhoffman 5y ago
    Wikileaks posted diplomatic cables without redacting the names or other forms of PII. Actual journalists from the New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Guardian, and El País all signed a statement saying this was a gross breach of people’s privacy and potentially put these people in danger. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader-wikileaks-unredacted-release https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cab...
    - jude- 5y ago
      This is the reason why I don't feel too bad for Julian Assange, and why I don't refer to him as a "journalist." Not redacting PII is such a rookie mistake that I can't see it as anything other than journalistic malpractice.
      - iNane9000 5y ago
        Well you can’t claim he is not a journalist and also accuse him of journalistic malpractice. It’s one or the other.
      - Dah00n 5y ago
        You don't feel bad for him because you have misunderstood what actually happened? Wikileaks had an encrypted file but it was a Guardian journalist that published the key to decrypt it. What you are suggesting is that Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. That is not how proof works. Redacted files isn't proof but tampered evidence. The fault is 100% on the person that leaked the decryption key. Blaming Julian Assange for this leak is jumping to conclusions.
        jude- 5y ago
        Saint Julian reused the same password on multiple different files. Ask yourself why he might commit such a slipshod error. > Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. WikiLeaks, like anyone, should take prudent steps to avoid doxxing people. If you can't understand why doxxing people is bad, then I have nothing to say to you.
        Dah00n 5y ago
        This has nothing to do with doxxing. You cannot discuss something by using the wrong words to try to force a (false) point. Besides, I don't like Julian assange so the whole Saint thing you got going only make you look childish.
    - stefan_ 5y ago
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    The two I'm aware of are https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-of-afghan-informants/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-... and https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-he..., which published the names of afghan informants to the us military, and the names, phone numbers, and addresses of half of the Turkish population, respectively. The first clearly endangered people, the second contained basically nothing of reporting use, it was just a trove of pii
gamblor956 5y ago
Both the leak of the DNC files, and the purported leak of files by a Putin critic, were found to contain numerous forged documents. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russian-dnc-hackers-planted-leaks-with-fake-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...) In a heinous followup, Assange claimed that a murdered DNC staffer was the party responsible for the DNC leak...based on no evidence except Assange's bro-love for Donald Trump. (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/wikileaks-and-fox-news-are-silent-on-the-debunked-seth-rich-conspiracy-theory-825686/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/wikileak...) But sure, let's pretend that nothing Wikileaks has posted has ever been shown to be fake or falsified, or that Assange himself has never lied.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >Both the leak of the DNC files, and the purported leak of files by a Putin critic, were found to contain numerous forged documents. Nothing in that article shows any evidence of tainted leaks in the DNC release. It claims some other leak had some tainted links, that they were carried out by the sane group, and that the Clinton team claimed emails were fake. Wikileaks Twitter account has been full of madness, almost as if it was being run by someone suffering years of torture. That's a separate claim from the validity of the site.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  The Forbes article you link to does not say that the DNC files contained forgeries. Assange also never said that Seth Rich was responsible for the leak. He was asked about it in an interview and gave an evasive/vague answer.
GoofballJones 5y ago
Important to note that Wikileaks wouldn't publish a retraction anyway, even if they were totally wrong. Come on...
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  Source? Do you have a relevant example?
- ratsmack 5y ago
  That's a very bold statement when history has shown otherwise. Don't you believe the powers that be would jump at the chance to discredit them? I would be so lucky if the generally corrupt mainstream media should be more like them.
dagmx 5y ago
That's a fairly charitable take on WikiLeaks. They host the entirety of the Sony leak on their site that caused me and hundreds of my colleagues to face a increased lifetime risk of fraud and stolen identity.
- anonymousiam 5y ago
  Hacked by North Korea and made easy by poor security on Sony's part. It sucks when personal information is stolen and published, but that genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back.
  - dagmx 5y ago
    That's still not a defense for hosting it and not censoring the data though. They're still complicit.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      You should be angry with yourself and Sony too.
Brakenshire 5y ago
“Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments“ That isn’t true for their social media: https://micahflee.com/2019/01/lies-that-wikileaks-tells-you/ https://micahflee.com/2019/01/lies-that-wikileaks-tells-you/

joshuamorton 5y ago

> They've never been shown to put anyone at risk This is false. They've denied putting people at risk, but there's decent evidence that their leaks have directly shared pii and harmed large numbers of random unimportant people.

capableweb 5y ago
Could you share this decent evidence for us who haven't seen it before?
- billyhoffman 5y ago
  Wikileaks posted diplomatic cables without redacting the names or other forms of PII. Actual journalists from the New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Guardian, and El País all signed a statement saying this was a gross breach of people’s privacy and potentially put these people in danger. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader-wikileaks-unredacted-release https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cab...
  - jude- 5y ago
    This is the reason why I don't feel too bad for Julian Assange, and why I don't refer to him as a "journalist." Not redacting PII is such a rookie mistake that I can't see it as anything other than journalistic malpractice.
    - iNane9000 5y ago
      Well you can’t claim he is not a journalist and also accuse him of journalistic malpractice. It’s one or the other.
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      You don't feel bad for him because you have misunderstood what actually happened? Wikileaks had an encrypted file but it was a Guardian journalist that published the key to decrypt it. What you are suggesting is that Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. That is not how proof works. Redacted files isn't proof but tampered evidence. The fault is 100% on the person that leaked the decryption key. Blaming Julian Assange for this leak is jumping to conclusions.
      - jude- 5y ago
        Saint Julian reused the same password on multiple different files. Ask yourself why he might commit such a slipshod error. > Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. WikiLeaks, like anyone, should take prudent steps to avoid doxxing people. If you can't understand why doxxing people is bad, then I have nothing to say to you.
        Dah00n 5y ago
        This has nothing to do with doxxing. You cannot discuss something by using the wrong words to try to force a (false) point. Besides, I don't like Julian assange so the whole Saint thing you got going only make you look childish.
  - stefan_ 5y ago
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  The two I'm aware of are https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-of-afghan-informants/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-... and https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-he..., which published the names of afghan informants to the us military, and the names, phone numbers, and addresses of half of the Turkish population, respectively. The first clearly endangered people, the second contained basically nothing of reporting use, it was just a trove of pii

gamblor956 5y ago

Both the leak of the DNC files, and the purported leak of files by a Putin critic, were found to contain numerous forged documents. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russian-dnc-hackers-planted-leaks-with-fake-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...) In a heinous followup, Assange claimed that a murdered DNC staffer was the party responsible for the DNC leak...based on no evidence except Assange's bro-love for Donald Trump. (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/wikileaks-and-fox-news-are-silent-on-the-debunked-seth-rich-conspiracy-theory-825686/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/wikileak...) But sure, let's pretend that nothing Wikileaks has posted has ever been shown to be fake or falsified, or that Assange himself has never lied.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Both the leak of the DNC files, and the purported leak of files by a Putin critic, were found to contain numerous forged documents. Nothing in that article shows any evidence of tainted leaks in the DNC release. It claims some other leak had some tainted links, that they were carried out by the sane group, and that the Clinton team claimed emails were fake. Wikileaks Twitter account has been full of madness, almost as if it was being run by someone suffering years of torture. That's a separate claim from the validity of the site.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
The Forbes article you link to does not say that the DNC files contained forgeries. Assange also never said that Seth Rich was responsible for the leak. He was asked about it in an interview and gave an evasive/vague answer.

GoofballJones 5y ago

Important to note that Wikileaks wouldn't publish a retraction anyway, even if they were totally wrong. Come on...

breakfastduck 5y ago
Source? Do you have a relevant example?
ratsmack 5y ago
That's a very bold statement when history has shown otherwise. Don't you believe the powers that be would jump at the chance to discredit them? I would be so lucky if the generally corrupt mainstream media should be more like them.

dagmx 5y ago

That's a fairly charitable take on WikiLeaks. They host the entirety of the Sony leak on their site that caused me and hundreds of my colleagues to face a increased lifetime risk of fraud and stolen identity.

anonymousiam 5y ago
Hacked by North Korea and made easy by poor security on Sony's part. It sucks when personal information is stolen and published, but that genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back.
- dagmx 5y ago
  That's still not a defense for hosting it and not censoring the data though. They're still complicit.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    You should be angry with yourself and Sony too.

Brakenshire 5y ago

“Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments“ That isn’t true for their social media: https://micahflee.com/2019/01/lies-that-wikileaks-tells-you/ https://micahflee.com/2019/01/lies-that-wikileaks-tells-you/