4 ms·

You took that quote, which simply doesn’t say what you want. Then you slapped your take on the end, which is what you want the quote to say, but it doesn’t. Wro

You took that quote, which simply doesn’t say what you want. Then you slapped your take on the end, which is what you want the quote to say, but it doesn’t. Wrong.

slg 5y ago
Ok, what does the quote actually say?
- the_optimist 5y ago
  It says “we have some information that is not worth publishing.” Your filigree about relative hurdle for publication is your invention entirely. Guess what? I have some information that is not worth publishing too. I bet you do too. So what would you propose the action be there?
  - slg 5y ago
    That sounds good in a vacuum, but it is logic that necessitates that everything they do publish is therefore worth publishing. How many of the tens of thousands of emails they leaked from Democrats were worthy of publishing? How many of them had information that had public value in exposing? If the answer is not “all of them” then why would the standard be different for Republicans?
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      Yes. Wikileaks' statement is a tautology. It is a neutral statement. Your assumptions beg your answer. You've asked fair questions, but you cannot presume the answers. Maybe you should start a blog and see if you can make such decisions yourself about what's worth publishing. Some people might even harangue you about your decisions and declare that you're a malicious foreign agent.
      - slg 5y ago
        I'm not making any assumptions, I am simply describing their behavior. They leaked tens of thousands of mundane and uninteresting documents about Democrats, but when it comes to Republicans the documents won't be published unless they are "controversial" to use Assange's exact wording. There is no explanation for that which meshes with the idea that they are a neutral platform.
        the_optimist 5y ago
        You assume WL published all Democrat documents. You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). You presume they did have Republican documents that would not be mundane and uninteresting. You simply disagree with their judgment in theory without having information about what you’re disputing, the magnitude, and the quality of your critique. You’ve clearly filled in the blanks with what you want to validate your criticism.
        slg 5y ago
        >You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). Once again, I am not assuming or presuming anything. I am judging the documents directly. Have you looked at them? Because it doesn't get any more mundane and uninteresting than people taking office lunch orders[1], people reporting they are at the dentist, or even over a hundred automatic out of office replies[3]. If these emails are worthy of publishing, everything is worthy of publishing. If anything, these emails have negative public value because they drown out the leaked emails that might have actually interesting content and many of them, especially the out of office emails, end up leaking totally innocent people's contact information. [1] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/21638 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/21638 [2] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23479 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23479 [3] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&count=200 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&c...
        5y ago

You took that quote, which simply doesn’t say what you want. Then you slapped your take on the end, which is what you want the quote to say, but it doesn’t. Wrong.

slg 5y ago

Ok, what does the quote actually say?

the_optimist 5y ago
It says “we have some information that is not worth publishing.” Your filigree about relative hurdle for publication is your invention entirely. Guess what? I have some information that is not worth publishing too. I bet you do too. So what would you propose the action be there?
- slg 5y ago
  That sounds good in a vacuum, but it is logic that necessitates that everything they do publish is therefore worth publishing. How many of the tens of thousands of emails they leaked from Democrats were worthy of publishing? How many of them had information that had public value in exposing? If the answer is not “all of them” then why would the standard be different for Republicans?
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    Yes. Wikileaks' statement is a tautology. It is a neutral statement. Your assumptions beg your answer. You've asked fair questions, but you cannot presume the answers. Maybe you should start a blog and see if you can make such decisions yourself about what's worth publishing. Some people might even harangue you about your decisions and declare that you're a malicious foreign agent.
    - slg 5y ago
      I'm not making any assumptions, I am simply describing their behavior. They leaked tens of thousands of mundane and uninteresting documents about Democrats, but when it comes to Republicans the documents won't be published unless they are "controversial" to use Assange's exact wording. There is no explanation for that which meshes with the idea that they are a neutral platform.
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        You assume WL published all Democrat documents. You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). You presume they did have Republican documents that would not be mundane and uninteresting. You simply disagree with their judgment in theory without having information about what you’re disputing, the magnitude, and the quality of your critique. You’ve clearly filled in the blanks with what you want to validate your criticism.
        slg 5y ago
        >You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). Once again, I am not assuming or presuming anything. I am judging the documents directly. Have you looked at them? Because it doesn't get any more mundane and uninteresting than people taking office lunch orders[1], people reporting they are at the dentist, or even over a hundred automatic out of office replies[3]. If these emails are worthy of publishing, everything is worthy of publishing. If anything, these emails have negative public value because they drown out the leaked emails that might have actually interesting content and many of them, especially the out of office emails, end up leaking totally innocent people's contact information. [1] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/21638 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/21638 [2] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23479 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23479 [3] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&count=200 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&c...
        5y ago