4 ms·

"There is absolutely no point of arguing who working for whom - only facts are important." I don't think so. There's generally no such thing as 'individual bl

"There is absolutely no point of arguing who working for whom - only facts are important." I don't think so. There's generally no such thing as 'individual blocks of truth' as independent things. The truth is always contextual. New Orgs have biases that exhibit themselves in all sorts of ways, and they matter. I'm not fully sure if either of these things are fully true but if 1) Assange was actively trying to help people steal sensitive information form the US and 2) has some kind of implied relationship with an American adversary whereupon they support him politically or with information - and whereby he returns the favour by suppressing leaks on their behalf - then what does this look like? This person basically becomes a foreign agent, intent on discrediting one party over another. The 'facts' released are ultimately selective. It'd be 'journalism' in the same way that Putin could use his powers to 'uncover' information and then frame and leak the information selectively. Again: I don't know if 1 and 2 are true. I'm also not fully on board with the notion that information about Assange is suppressed in the conspiratorial sense it'd be interesting to see more behind the scenes mechanics of how that might work.

ben_w 5y ago
> There's generally no such thing as 'individual blocks of truth' as independent things. The truth is always contextual. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with this statement in isolation. On the other, I don’t need him to be unbiased, as he isn’t the only journalist in the world — if he wants (or needs) to keep Russia happy, so long as he has a counterpart that doesn’t, between them the public is informed.
- giardini 5y ago
  Yes. And why is the USA trying to take him into custody? While in the USA for a US citizen to work as a foreign agent is illegal, I fail to see why Assange, who is a citizen of Australia and mostly has resided in other countries, should be arrested by yet another country and shipped to the USA. Did Assange commit a crime in the USA? Wasn't it Manning who got the supposed "classified" info and gave it to Assange? How about a little goddamn proof? How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA? This whole Assange thing is just a streaming shit-show of nonsense and a shameful attempt to drive one man to ruin and worse. Both Democrats and Republicans have other problems to worry about every day b/c they don't have their acts together. All this trouble comes b/c a cabal of jerks somewhere (probably the intelligence community) has a hard-on to fuck Assange over and is somehow tolerated. Just for comparison: would it be ethical for the USA to bushwhack and extradite a street vendor in Egypt who cries "Kill the USA!" and burns Uncle Sam in effigy? Hell No! This stuff happens all the time. The USA bureaucracy is like an information sieve. If you wanna fix it, find a better way to work. Give Assange his freedom. Drag into the sunlight those fools who are perpetuating this nonsense and terminate their employment. Brand their foreheads with a giant letter "A" so they're identifiable forever. Anything Assange has revealed is by now "water under the bridge". To use another metaphor, "the genie is out of the bottle" and you can't put it back. Grow up!
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > How about a little goddamn proof? How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA? In theory, that’d be the job of the court case he’s fighting an extradition to not face. And, to be clear where I stand, in the (unlikely) event that anyone’s secret services care what I think, they’d have to be a lot more open and honest about their mistakes for me to trust them when they say “we need X secret, trust us” — almost everything that people like me get to hear about them are their mistakes, and a whole lot of hubris to go with those mistakes; while I like to assume they can’t all be that bad, the fact is I can only form opinions by what I learn, and whatever good any of them might do is kept secret (or so vague it might as well be) and is unlearnable, while the bad stuff is writ large. (None of this is relevant to the judicial systems in any country or Assange).
  - ohashi 5y ago
    Water under the bridge or not, they don't want people doing it again or supporting Russia. It could be as much as a message to the next potential Assange - don't even try. If you believe he's an enemy of your interests and working with your enemy to hurt you, I have a hard time seeing a calculation they would make that says leave him alone since what's done is done. They are going to make his life miserable forever and hope it's a deterrent. That's the realpolitik of the situation - morals ignored.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "And why is the USA trying to take him into custody? " Because Assange was ostensibly helping someone steal classified information. These allegations are well known. "How about a little goddamn proof? " They literally have text messages of him encouraging and ostensibly helping someone to steal information. This is also well known. "How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA?" That's what's happening: they are extraditing him so that the evidence can be put on the table and we can see what's what. This is well known. "Give Assange his freedom. " He has his freedom. He's possibly comitted a crime, which is why he's going to court. I think your comment implies an general ignorance of the situation.
    - giardini 5y ago
andi999 5y ago
The truth might be sometimes contextual but not most of the time.
SXX 5y ago
I think it's would make sense to take into account who specific person working for in situation when we have proven facts about them. Unfortunately it's almost always impossible to get those unbiased facts since there is so much of misinformation everywhere. And even if you knew for sure that Assange knowingly working for Russia you will never know why he doing it. After all US wants to get him on US soil and to put him in prison (for 300 years) to make him an example of US power and "justice". And on other hand Putin's regime can just threat to kill his friends and family since they totally capable of doing it, no defending against it in UK court. Oh, looks like i posted some funny conspiracy here. Conclusion: when we try to dig into information about specific people we end up with conspiracy mess. That information impossible to check and it doesn't prove anything. On other side when activists or journalists publish stories about something like war crime, PRISM or Panama Papers facts can usually be verified because when it's leaked it's too big to hide.

ben_w 5y ago

> There's generally no such thing as 'individual blocks of truth' as independent things. The truth is always contextual. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with this statement in isolation. On the other, I don’t need him to be unbiased, as he isn’t the only journalist in the world — if he wants (or needs) to keep Russia happy, so long as he has a counterpart that doesn’t, between them the public is informed.

giardini 5y ago
Yes. And why is the USA trying to take him into custody? While in the USA for a US citizen to work as a foreign agent is illegal, I fail to see why Assange, who is a citizen of Australia and mostly has resided in other countries, should be arrested by yet another country and shipped to the USA. Did Assange commit a crime in the USA? Wasn't it Manning who got the supposed "classified" info and gave it to Assange? How about a little goddamn proof? How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA? This whole Assange thing is just a streaming shit-show of nonsense and a shameful attempt to drive one man to ruin and worse. Both Democrats and Republicans have other problems to worry about every day b/c they don't have their acts together. All this trouble comes b/c a cabal of jerks somewhere (probably the intelligence community) has a hard-on to fuck Assange over and is somehow tolerated. Just for comparison: would it be ethical for the USA to bushwhack and extradite a street vendor in Egypt who cries "Kill the USA!" and burns Uncle Sam in effigy? Hell No! This stuff happens all the time. The USA bureaucracy is like an information sieve. If you wanna fix it, find a better way to work. Give Assange his freedom. Drag into the sunlight those fools who are perpetuating this nonsense and terminate their employment. Brand their foreheads with a giant letter "A" so they're identifiable forever. Anything Assange has revealed is by now "water under the bridge". To use another metaphor, "the genie is out of the bottle" and you can't put it back. Grow up!
- ben_w 5y ago
  > How about a little goddamn proof? How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA? In theory, that’d be the job of the court case he’s fighting an extradition to not face. And, to be clear where I stand, in the (unlikely) event that anyone’s secret services care what I think, they’d have to be a lot more open and honest about their mistakes for me to trust them when they say “we need X secret, trust us” — almost everything that people like me get to hear about them are their mistakes, and a whole lot of hubris to go with those mistakes; while I like to assume they can’t all be that bad, the fact is I can only form opinions by what I learn, and whatever good any of them might do is kept secret (or so vague it might as well be) and is unlearnable, while the bad stuff is writ large. (None of this is relevant to the judicial systems in any country or Assange).
- ohashi 5y ago
  Water under the bridge or not, they don't want people doing it again or supporting Russia. It could be as much as a message to the next potential Assange - don't even try. If you believe he's an enemy of your interests and working with your enemy to hurt you, I have a hard time seeing a calculation they would make that says leave him alone since what's done is done. They are going to make his life miserable forever and hope it's a deterrent. That's the realpolitik of the situation - morals ignored.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "And why is the USA trying to take him into custody? " Because Assange was ostensibly helping someone steal classified information. These allegations are well known. "How about a little goddamn proof? " They literally have text messages of him encouraging and ostensibly helping someone to steal information. This is also well known. "How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA?" That's what's happening: they are extraditing him so that the evidence can be put on the table and we can see what's what. This is well known. "Give Assange his freedom. " He has his freedom. He's possibly comitted a crime, which is why he's going to court. I think your comment implies an general ignorance of the situation.
  - giardini 5y ago

andi999 5y ago

The truth might be sometimes contextual but not most of the time.

SXX 5y ago

I think it's would make sense to take into account who specific person working for in situation when we have proven facts about them. Unfortunately it's almost always impossible to get those unbiased facts since there is so much of misinformation everywhere. And even if you knew for sure that Assange knowingly working for Russia you will never know why he doing it. After all US wants to get him on US soil and to put him in prison (for 300 years) to make him an example of US power and "justice". And on other hand Putin's regime can just threat to kill his friends and family since they totally capable of doing it, no defending against it in UK court. Oh, looks like i posted some funny conspiracy here. Conclusion: when we try to dig into information about specific people we end up with conspiracy mess. That information impossible to check and it doesn't prove anything. On other side when activists or journalists publish stories about something like war crime, PRISM or Panama Papers facts can usually be verified because when it's leaked it's too big to hide.