18 ms·

This website was dying already, ie. not being updated since Julian was imprisoned, but still a massive treasure trove for journalists and investigators. It is

This website was dying already, ie. not being updated since Julian was imprisoned, but still a massive treasure trove for journalists and investigators. It is a very worrying sign of the times that it is vanishing, as the state powers seem to be fighting back against democracy and independent journalism.

seydor 4y ago
Democracy is the State. Democracy however does not equal freedom EDIT: i mean individual freedom.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  With "democracy" in «against democracy» the original poster clearly meant "that transparency that enables the decision and judgement of the People" (those conditions that allow the functioning of the empowerment of the People).
- lynx23 4y ago
  Even the most naive people learned that after COVID mandates.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    And the constructive point? First of all, of course Democracy has nothing to do with any supposed "absolute defense of freedom", because it is a system of attribution of power, involving coercion - because a fine line separates balance of interests ("politics") and actual coercion. So, of course, if one empowered inadequate individuals the rules will be absurd and damaging - and this has been actually happening, and it is not surprising at all to an etiologic analysis. But second, soon after Hammurabi started his reign in minus 1792 of the typical timescale, already since the framework established those many millennia ago power is limited - constitutionalism is very old. So, not only it is already well established that some will be empowered, it is also well established that they will not be fully empowered. There is no lesson that, in general, "power limits freedom": there is full evidence that the current systems need much more R&D. To note that, you already had e.g. gerrymandering, which is very graphic, or the failures in quality citizenship development - kind of the opposite of the hopeful depiction in "12 Angry Men" - which is very pervading.
    - lynx23 4y ago
      > But perhaps the most frightening way in which the COVID-19 crisis could > undermine democracy is by reducing popular confidence in the democratic > model. https://harvardpolitics.com/a-last-stand-for-freedom-global-democracy-and-covid-19/ https://harvardpolitics.com/a-last-stand-for-freedom-global-...
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        Preliminarily: the article in the Harvard Political Review seems to equate Democracy and Freedom, but that it is just a perspectual effect: it is substantially equating autocracies and _arbitrary_ limitation of freedom. (Which, in the context you propose, should be compared to "_clumsy_ limitation of freedom", plotting data in the two dimensions of malice and stupidity.) When the article mentions that risk of «reducing popular confidence in the democratic model», it clearly indicates it as an hysterical response, suggesting literally the possibility of «apparent [only] success» increase on the side of autocracies. The whole sub-context reinforces the evidence that Democracy requires, as a foundation, curbing the roots and risks of phenomena like hysterical responses - there is a systemic matter about the care for the roots enabling Democracy, a matter which the article notes in terms like those stating an «already declining state of global democracy». If there is a risk that some may think "ah but an iron fist would solve it" (oversimplifications, "silver bullets" - populism), then you have a problem, gravely impacting Democracy, that you have to solve through Education. The contextual opposite of the caused damage, of arbitrary measures, is not a "freedom to", but a "freedom from" - freedom from the absurd. This requires proper maintenance of the system. That requires proper information subsystems, with special regard to investigative journalism. That is to be free to live in a well working and fair system - a specific form of Freedom.
- t0bia_s 4y ago
  It depends on definition of freedom. Are people in Africa free? Are they happy? Is you dependency on state and money a freedom? What about morale? Is it freedom to be narcissistic? Is it freedom to has millions different laws? Is it freedom to have imaginary choice of voting for someone who has money and someone who has even more money? Is it freedom to be forced to use platform that collects data about you? Is it freedom to live in society where fear drive politics?
  - seydor 4y ago
    We have pretty good definitions of freedom from the time of enlightenment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... But we have failed to implement them. I think we need to admit that democracy worked well towards that goal in the 20th century but it has been set back with the help of technology in recent decades. The amount of surveillance and manipulation of the current world is astounding by historic standards and it is used against the individual. We should also not compare our democracies to failed mafia states or undeveloped ones, but to ourselves.
pifm_guy 4y ago
I'm kinda surprised efforts like this aren't more heavily sponsored by other countries. Like if you were Russia or Iran right now, paying a bit of money to keep wikileaks' servers running would seem like money well invested.
- Synaesthesia 4y ago
  Wikileaks was going after any and all state actors, including Russia and Iran, nobody wants their dirty laundry aired.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    What did Wikileaks have on Russia? I've never heard of anything particularly juicy, and well, I'd go look it up, but... /looks at article
    - thepangolino 4y ago
      Same as for any other country. Dirty laundry of all sorts: tales of corruption, collusion, etc. What makes it different is that Russia is expected to be like that. Not the US.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      Nothing much. Being based in Western Europe and being run primarily by English speakers meant very few Russian leaks would get sent to Wikileaks.
      - jddil 4y ago
        How did this become the narrative? Wikileaks was started by the Russian secret service, so of course they wouldn't leak their own stuff. Assange was a useful idiot to them.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        ... Source? My version is the easily verifiable truth, which is why it is the narrative.
llanowarelves 4y ago
democracy is a threat to Our Democracy
- lamp987 4y ago
  #NotMyDemocracy
- ki_ 4y ago
  well. what if the public consists of 10% independent thinkers and 90% that follows whatever propaganda gets shoved through their eyes and ears. And if you can use your current power and money to create the most propaganda. Are people really voting? Or is the money/power that does the voting? And this is not some invented theory, if you question people why they believe what they believe, you'll discover quit fast that they dont know why they believe what they believe, except for, they were told so, by friends, tv, media, etc etc. It's easier to copy opinions (and be angry) than to establish your own.
  - cdogl 4y ago
    The definition of "democracy" is not subject to your broad, sweeping, unfalsifiable judgments about human nature and other peoples' apparent ignorance. (Presumably the author and reader are excluded from this, through some luck?)
    - dalbasal 4y ago
      What is it subject to? .. or defined by? Democracy is a word with almost no consistent meaning or definition, yet everyone treats it as if it's clean and defined. Other than "communism is whatever the communist party does," what is democracy anyway?
      - ben_w 4y ago
        "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (that's North not South) comes to mind — even less genuine than clicking "I have read and agreed to the terms and conditions" on the average pre-GDPR EULA, but nevertheless perfectly illustrates the vagueness of the word. My own personal bugbear is when people say they want to "democratise" nouns and verbs, e.g. "democratise maths" or "democratise running" (both real examples) and yet there is no idea at all what that might mean. Votes? And if so, who and how and when?
mrtksn 4y ago
I think they lost quite a bit of public support when they selectively leaked documents during election time.
- kome 4y ago
  I guess they leaked what they had; leaks are not bipartisan
  - input_sh 4y ago
    That's just inaccurate. For example, they didn't even respond to Panama Papers leaker who approached them before he approached Süddeutsche Zeitung.
    - kome 4y ago
      no i remember it was more complex: https://www.dw.com/en/wikileaks-slams-panama-papers-trickle-down-strategy/a-19170435 https://www.dw.com/en/wikileaks-slams-panama-papers-trickle-... they wanted to give the public full access. and that's how wikileaks always worked. > "That is what I'd want to see with these 'Panama Papers.' They should be available to the general public in such a manner so everybody, not just the group of journalists working directly on the data, can search it," Hrafnsson added.
      - input_sh 4y ago
        I'm not gonna say it's a lie because I don't know, but that's not the leaker's version of the story. > The impact is real: in addition to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ, and despite explicit claims to the contrary, several major media outlets did have editors review documents from the Panama Papers. They chose not to cover them. The sad truth is that among the most prominent and capable media organizations in the world there was not a single one interested in reporting on the story. Even Wikileaks didn’t answer its tip line repeatedly. https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/20160506-john-doe-statement/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/20160506-j... They had the opportunity to publish it in full, they didn't, leaker went to someone that had a different strategy in mind.
anothernewdude 4y ago
It's not really. While they managed to make the news, and were the most prominent, they are hardly the most effective at providing leaks or whistle blowing (assuming you believed that was their purpose)
coffeeblack 4y ago
The state powers as well as certain radicalized groups. Terrifying how easy it turned out to wash people’s brains.

seydor 4y ago

Democracy is the State. Democracy however does not equal freedom EDIT: i mean individual freedom.

mdp2021 4y ago
With "democracy" in «against democracy» the original poster clearly meant "that transparency that enables the decision and judgement of the People" (those conditions that allow the functioning of the empowerment of the People).
lynx23 4y ago
Even the most naive people learned that after COVID mandates.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  And the constructive point? First of all, of course Democracy has nothing to do with any supposed "absolute defense of freedom", because it is a system of attribution of power, involving coercion - because a fine line separates balance of interests ("politics") and actual coercion. So, of course, if one empowered inadequate individuals the rules will be absurd and damaging - and this has been actually happening, and it is not surprising at all to an etiologic analysis. But second, soon after Hammurabi started his reign in minus 1792 of the typical timescale, already since the framework established those many millennia ago power is limited - constitutionalism is very old. So, not only it is already well established that some will be empowered, it is also well established that they will not be fully empowered. There is no lesson that, in general, "power limits freedom": there is full evidence that the current systems need much more R&D. To note that, you already had e.g. gerrymandering, which is very graphic, or the failures in quality citizenship development - kind of the opposite of the hopeful depiction in "12 Angry Men" - which is very pervading.
  - lynx23 4y ago
    > But perhaps the most frightening way in which the COVID-19 crisis could > undermine democracy is by reducing popular confidence in the democratic > model. https://harvardpolitics.com/a-last-stand-for-freedom-global-democracy-and-covid-19/ https://harvardpolitics.com/a-last-stand-for-freedom-global-...
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      Preliminarily: the article in the Harvard Political Review seems to equate Democracy and Freedom, but that it is just a perspectual effect: it is substantially equating autocracies and _arbitrary_ limitation of freedom. (Which, in the context you propose, should be compared to "_clumsy_ limitation of freedom", plotting data in the two dimensions of malice and stupidity.) When the article mentions that risk of «reducing popular confidence in the democratic model», it clearly indicates it as an hysterical response, suggesting literally the possibility of «apparent [only] success» increase on the side of autocracies. The whole sub-context reinforces the evidence that Democracy requires, as a foundation, curbing the roots and risks of phenomena like hysterical responses - there is a systemic matter about the care for the roots enabling Democracy, a matter which the article notes in terms like those stating an «already declining state of global democracy». If there is a risk that some may think "ah but an iron fist would solve it" (oversimplifications, "silver bullets" - populism), then you have a problem, gravely impacting Democracy, that you have to solve through Education. The contextual opposite of the caused damage, of arbitrary measures, is not a "freedom to", but a "freedom from" - freedom from the absurd. This requires proper maintenance of the system. That requires proper information subsystems, with special regard to investigative journalism. That is to be free to live in a well working and fair system - a specific form of Freedom.
t0bia_s 4y ago
It depends on definition of freedom. Are people in Africa free? Are they happy? Is you dependency on state and money a freedom? What about morale? Is it freedom to be narcissistic? Is it freedom to has millions different laws? Is it freedom to have imaginary choice of voting for someone who has money and someone who has even more money? Is it freedom to be forced to use platform that collects data about you? Is it freedom to live in society where fear drive politics?
- seydor 4y ago
  We have pretty good definitions of freedom from the time of enlightenment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... But we have failed to implement them. I think we need to admit that democracy worked well towards that goal in the 20th century but it has been set back with the help of technology in recent decades. The amount of surveillance and manipulation of the current world is astounding by historic standards and it is used against the individual. We should also not compare our democracies to failed mafia states or undeveloped ones, but to ourselves.

pifm_guy 4y ago

I'm kinda surprised efforts like this aren't more heavily sponsored by other countries. Like if you were Russia or Iran right now, paying a bit of money to keep wikileaks' servers running would seem like money well invested.

Synaesthesia 4y ago
Wikileaks was going after any and all state actors, including Russia and Iran, nobody wants their dirty laundry aired.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  What did Wikileaks have on Russia? I've never heard of anything particularly juicy, and well, I'd go look it up, but... /looks at article
  - thepangolino 4y ago
    Same as for any other country. Dirty laundry of all sorts: tales of corruption, collusion, etc. What makes it different is that Russia is expected to be like that. Not the US.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Nothing much. Being based in Western Europe and being run primarily by English speakers meant very few Russian leaks would get sent to Wikileaks.
    - jddil 4y ago
      How did this become the narrative? Wikileaks was started by the Russian secret service, so of course they wouldn't leak their own stuff. Assange was a useful idiot to them.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        ... Source? My version is the easily verifiable truth, which is why it is the narrative.

llanowarelves 4y ago

democracy is a threat to Our Democracy

lamp987 4y ago
#NotMyDemocracy
ki_ 4y ago
well. what if the public consists of 10% independent thinkers and 90% that follows whatever propaganda gets shoved through their eyes and ears. And if you can use your current power and money to create the most propaganda. Are people really voting? Or is the money/power that does the voting? And this is not some invented theory, if you question people why they believe what they believe, you'll discover quit fast that they dont know why they believe what they believe, except for, they were told so, by friends, tv, media, etc etc. It's easier to copy opinions (and be angry) than to establish your own.
- cdogl 4y ago
  The definition of "democracy" is not subject to your broad, sweeping, unfalsifiable judgments about human nature and other peoples' apparent ignorance. (Presumably the author and reader are excluded from this, through some luck?)
  - dalbasal 4y ago
    What is it subject to? .. or defined by? Democracy is a word with almost no consistent meaning or definition, yet everyone treats it as if it's clean and defined. Other than "communism is whatever the communist party does," what is democracy anyway?
    - ben_w 4y ago
      "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (that's North not South) comes to mind — even less genuine than clicking "I have read and agreed to the terms and conditions" on the average pre-GDPR EULA, but nevertheless perfectly illustrates the vagueness of the word. My own personal bugbear is when people say they want to "democratise" nouns and verbs, e.g. "democratise maths" or "democratise running" (both real examples) and yet there is no idea at all what that might mean. Votes? And if so, who and how and when?

mrtksn 4y ago

I think they lost quite a bit of public support when they selectively leaked documents during election time.

kome 4y ago
I guess they leaked what they had; leaks are not bipartisan
- input_sh 4y ago
  That's just inaccurate. For example, they didn't even respond to Panama Papers leaker who approached them before he approached Süddeutsche Zeitung.
  - kome 4y ago
    no i remember it was more complex: https://www.dw.com/en/wikileaks-slams-panama-papers-trickle-down-strategy/a-19170435 https://www.dw.com/en/wikileaks-slams-panama-papers-trickle-... they wanted to give the public full access. and that's how wikileaks always worked. > "That is what I'd want to see with these 'Panama Papers.' They should be available to the general public in such a manner so everybody, not just the group of journalists working directly on the data, can search it," Hrafnsson added.
    - input_sh 4y ago
      I'm not gonna say it's a lie because I don't know, but that's not the leaker's version of the story. > The impact is real: in addition to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ, and despite explicit claims to the contrary, several major media outlets did have editors review documents from the Panama Papers. They chose not to cover them. The sad truth is that among the most prominent and capable media organizations in the world there was not a single one interested in reporting on the story. Even Wikileaks didn’t answer its tip line repeatedly. https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/20160506-john-doe-statement/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/20160506-j... They had the opportunity to publish it in full, they didn't, leaker went to someone that had a different strategy in mind.

anothernewdude 4y ago

It's not really. While they managed to make the news, and were the most prominent, they are hardly the most effective at providing leaks or whistle blowing (assuming you believed that was their purpose)

coffeeblack 4y ago

The state powers as well as certain radicalized groups. Terrifying how easy it turned out to wash people’s brains.