4 ms·

All serious implications aside for a moment, isn't this refreshingly ironic? Wikileaks having to deal with important information about THEM being leaked for a c

by kahawe 15y ago

All serious implications aside for a moment, isn't this refreshingly ironic? Wikileaks having to deal with important information about THEM being leaked for a change.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gwern 15y ago
Refreshing? No, it is the brain-dead cached response, one that has been invoked countless times for everything to do with Wikileaks internals. The donation list became public? 'Oh ho ho, how ironic!' One of the supporters splits and writes a book about it? 'isn't this refreshingly ironic?' The cable database goes public? 'how very ironic!' And so on. I'm about as sick of it as I am of articles about a random bit of Wikipedia vandalism.
- kahawe 15y ago
  Even worse then! Why should an organization trying to leak as much about anyone they can and matters be above their own standards and mantras? If "True information does good." well then who knows what this and the other leaks were good for. I do not see wikileaks as any more trustworthy or "better" or "more ethical" than the authorities they are acting against - yes, AGAINST, read Assange's book, he has an agenda and it might not be as altruistic and do-good as most people like to believe.
  - gnosis 15y ago
    "I do not see wikileaks as any more trustworthy or "better" or "more ethical" than the authorities they are acting against" Um.. let's see... last I checked, Wikileaks hadn't tortured any prisoners, invaded any countries, or murdered countless civilians. So, yeah, I'd count them as just a tad more ethical than the scumbags they're releasing dirt on.
    - kahawe 15y ago
      Every country gets the government they deserve (and vote). But what makes you think Assange and his gang would make better decisions given they were in the exact same situation? Power corrupts and wikileaks certainly demonstrated on several occasions just how incredibly powerful they are or can be. I am from Europe so this might be a bit different "over there" but what I was trying to say was: I do not trust WikiLeaks and Assange or question them more or less than I trust and question my government and I certainly do not see Assange's understanding of and longing for anarchy (see his book) as an appropriate replacement of our current governments. Do you?
  - gwern 15y ago
    I don't care about whether Wikileaks suffers leaks or not. I am a little sick of the 'ironic' spin. By this point, it's about ironic as Alanis Morrissette's 'Ironic'.
    - kahawe 15y ago
      OK, then excuse my facetious "haaa-haaaa" and replace "ironic" with "good" and "the way it should be" or something similar.
nitrogen 15y ago
It's not the first time. At one point some information about WL donors was leaked, and in response, WL added the leak to their published archive.

by kahawe 15y ago

All serious implications aside for a moment, isn't this refreshingly ironic? Wikileaks having to deal with important information about THEM being leaked for a change.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

gwern 15y ago

Refreshing? No, it is the brain-dead cached response, one that has been invoked countless times for everything to do with Wikileaks internals. The donation list became public? 'Oh ho ho, how ironic!' One of the supporters splits and writes a book about it? 'isn't this refreshingly ironic?' The cable database goes public? 'how very ironic!' And so on. I'm about as sick of it as I am of articles about a random bit of Wikipedia vandalism.

kahawe 15y ago
Even worse then! Why should an organization trying to leak as much about anyone they can and matters be above their own standards and mantras? If "True information does good." well then who knows what this and the other leaks were good for. I do not see wikileaks as any more trustworthy or "better" or "more ethical" than the authorities they are acting against - yes, AGAINST, read Assange's book, he has an agenda and it might not be as altruistic and do-good as most people like to believe.
- gnosis 15y ago
  "I do not see wikileaks as any more trustworthy or "better" or "more ethical" than the authorities they are acting against" Um.. let's see... last I checked, Wikileaks hadn't tortured any prisoners, invaded any countries, or murdered countless civilians. So, yeah, I'd count them as just a tad more ethical than the scumbags they're releasing dirt on.
  - kahawe 15y ago
    Every country gets the government they deserve (and vote). But what makes you think Assange and his gang would make better decisions given they were in the exact same situation? Power corrupts and wikileaks certainly demonstrated on several occasions just how incredibly powerful they are or can be. I am from Europe so this might be a bit different "over there" but what I was trying to say was: I do not trust WikiLeaks and Assange or question them more or less than I trust and question my government and I certainly do not see Assange's understanding of and longing for anarchy (see his book) as an appropriate replacement of our current governments. Do you?
- gwern 15y ago
  I don't care about whether Wikileaks suffers leaks or not. I am a little sick of the 'ironic' spin. By this point, it's about ironic as Alanis Morrissette's 'Ironic'.
  - kahawe 15y ago
    OK, then excuse my facetious "haaa-haaaa" and replace "ironic" with "good" and "the way it should be" or something similar.

nitrogen 15y ago

It's not the first time. At one point some information about WL donors was leaked, and in response, WL added the leak to their published archive.