>that he is clearly a good guy The unspoken assumption behind this question is that any actor in our society needs to be morally or personally exemplary for th

>that he is clearly a good guy The unspoken assumption behind this question is that any actor in our society needs to be morally or personally exemplary for their work to have value. It's a modern version of Donatism. Donatists were a group of Christians in the fourth century. Their core tenet was that priests need to be ‘faultless’ for their prayers and their sacraments to be valid It's often faulty son-of-the-bitch that makes a lasting positive mark on society. ---- About Assange. Assange started a hugely positive movement with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks continues to be a positive force. The problem with WikiLeaks under Assange was that he could not keep it impersonal under stress. Assange allowed himself and WikiLeaks to be used as a tool. Then he adopted a conspiratory tone to everything. His supporters are now completely convinced that everyone in the government fulfilling their lawful orders is personally invested in an evil plot to get him. Contrast Assange to Snowden. Snowden lives in Russia but is less a tool for Russians than Assange is. Snowden understands that people whose job is to get him, are not some evil cabal. Breaking the law for the good of the society is sometimes necessary. That does not mean that everyone on the opposite side is evil.