4 ms·
There are 4 things he could have done: 1. Don't reveal any secrets. 2A Reveal secrets that harm candidate A. 2B Reveal secrets that harm candidate B. 3. Reveal
by xgb84j 5y ago
There are 4 things he could have done:
1. Don't reveal any secrets.
2A Reveal secrets that harm candidate A.
2B Reveal secrets that harm candidate B.
3. Reveal all secrets that harm candidate A and candidate B.
I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. You seem to think option 1 is preferable to both options 2A and 2B. GP and I seem to think the opposite.
I can understand your argument that half the truth can be worse than no truth at all. But as there are very few sources for information like WikiLeaks I think in cases like this, half the truth might be all the public can get and it at least gives you a basic idea of what is happening when nobody is looking.
- leephillips 5y ago“I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options.” Really? I think that’s probably the most popular option. Why do you say that?
- cookie_monsta 5y agoAgreed. The journalistic options here are 1 and 3. 2A and B are what propagandists do.
- xgb84j 5y agoI missed a _not_ in that sentence. I and most other people on HN obviously want to know everything.
- leephillips 5y agoOh, well.
- a1369209993 5y ago> I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. From context, ITYM "disputes", not "argues". Or least that's the only way your comment makes sense; "argues" a position generally refers to supporting that position.
- ipaddr 5y agoYou suspect two murders. One by dnc and one by rnc. You have video of the dnc one and you don't show it because you lack the other video? You hide the truth because it is not fair to the first murder that you don't have proof of the other?