4 ms·

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 kee

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.
- papito 4y ago
  Bold statement. "The Democratic National Committee emails, provided to WikiLeaks ahead of the 2016 election by Russian state entities posing as rogue hackers, are similarly missing."
  - jonathanstrange 4y ago
    Although the CIA would appreciate that and it's part of their smear campaign against Wikileaks, I don't think a leak website should wait with publishing dirt on country X until it has collected dirt on all other countries in the world. That would make no sense.
    - LastTrain 4y ago
      They were doing the opposite, releasing some documents and holding onto others for their own strategic reasons. It was always super shady, compounded by the fact that much of it was driven by one man’s ego.
      - jonathanstrange 4y ago
        Whether they held on to documents for strategic reasons, as you claim without presenting any evidence, doesn't concern me at all and it shouldn't concern you. What matters is whether the published documents were genuine leaks, and for all that we know they were. That's why Wikileaks was prosecuted and is being destroyed. Imagine you leak some important classified information to Wikileaks and they don't publish it. You'll just send it somewhere else. There are hundreds of journals and thousands of journalists to whom you can alternatively send the information. It's frankly speaking stupid to claim that not publishing a leak "for strategic reasons" could somehow be harmful. It is also worth mentioning that journalists do that very often for a vast number of reasons such as national security, their own security, protecting contacts, protecting sources, fear of legal repercussions, political agenda of the editor in chief, etc. There is nothing special about Wikileaks in that regards. What was special about Wikileaks was their policy of publishing everything with only minor redaction and, most importantly, without asking the befriended intelligence community for the green light first. That's what normal news outlets tend to do, unless they have a very high level story like Watergate.
xiphias2 4y ago
If millions of people die in a war in Russia, the government doesn’t feel anything, because they are not the ones going to war. If their own people turn against them, they feel it.
- Tade0 4y ago
  But, at least in Russia, they don't and they won't because that's not how power transfers work in this country. Alexei Navalny was the last person attempting to change this, but he failed. Also Russia has its own social media, search engine etc., so some information simply doesn't reach the common Russian. Over here in eastern Europe as far back as in the 00s there was the concept of "Russian internet"(Runet) - it wasn't technically sealed off from the rest of the world, but was more a small, independent world in and of itself that exchanged information mostly internally, in Russian.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Cause there leaked documents were/are on it as well. At some non-ideologic point the interests of all state actors meet. The might makes right mentality of a seasoned bureaucrat is the same everywhere. Which is why the narrative of Wikileaks being funded as a psy OP does not hold up. Such a "attack" would only host one type of document and its journalists wouldn't "attack" all governments equally. But hey, if i betrayed the fourth pillar of democracy and suffered from cognitive dissonance therefore, this not being supported by the "evils" behind it, would be woven into some nice story too.
H8crilA 4y ago
> 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. Who do you think paid for those servers in the past, lol. Seems that the GRU has defunded the project, though - they must have other higher priority projects. Some details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU#Unit_74455 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU#Unit_74455
- glenstein 4y ago
  The link you shared doesn't appear to mention anything about funding or defunding anything. It seems to be more about coordinated dissemination of documents. I don't feel like I'm any closer to knowing who does or doesn't fund on going operations of WikiLeaks.
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    It would be really easy to figure such things out if intelligence agencies published all their activity, but shockingly this is not the world that we live in.
gasull 4y ago
I don't think it's about funding. WikiLeaks likely has enough money from BTC donations a long time ago. The know-how is in Assange's mind, and he's in prison.
vitium_casiri 4y ago
It's amazing the amount of crazy stuff people trick themselves into beleiving due to their hatred of Trump. Wikileaks works for Russia? This wikileaks? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11893886 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11893886
- laidoffamazon 4y ago
  Most people think Assange was turned by Russian state intelligence after 2013/2014. The "reporting" on Russia vanished after.

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.
papito 4y ago
Bold statement. "The Democratic National Committee emails, provided to WikiLeaks ahead of the 2016 election by Russian state entities posing as rogue hackers, are similarly missing."
- jonathanstrange 4y ago
  Although the CIA would appreciate that and it's part of their smear campaign against Wikileaks, I don't think a leak website should wait with publishing dirt on country X until it has collected dirt on all other countries in the world. That would make no sense.
  - LastTrain 4y ago
    They were doing the opposite, releasing some documents and holding onto others for their own strategic reasons. It was always super shady, compounded by the fact that much of it was driven by one man’s ego.
    - jonathanstrange 4y ago
      Whether they held on to documents for strategic reasons, as you claim without presenting any evidence, doesn't concern me at all and it shouldn't concern you. What matters is whether the published documents were genuine leaks, and for all that we know they were. That's why Wikileaks was prosecuted and is being destroyed. Imagine you leak some important classified information to Wikileaks and they don't publish it. You'll just send it somewhere else. There are hundreds of journals and thousands of journalists to whom you can alternatively send the information. It's frankly speaking stupid to claim that not publishing a leak "for strategic reasons" could somehow be harmful. It is also worth mentioning that journalists do that very often for a vast number of reasons such as national security, their own security, protecting contacts, protecting sources, fear of legal repercussions, political agenda of the editor in chief, etc. There is nothing special about Wikileaks in that regards. What was special about Wikileaks was their policy of publishing everything with only minor redaction and, most importantly, without asking the befriended intelligence community for the green light first. That's what normal news outlets tend to do, unless they have a very high level story like Watergate.

xiphias2 4y ago

If millions of people die in a war in Russia, the government doesn’t feel anything, because they are not the ones going to war. If their own people turn against them, they feel it.

Tade0 4y ago
But, at least in Russia, they don't and they won't because that's not how power transfers work in this country. Alexei Navalny was the last person attempting to change this, but he failed. Also Russia has its own social media, search engine etc., so some information simply doesn't reach the common Russian. Over here in eastern Europe as far back as in the 00s there was the concept of "Russian internet"(Runet) - it wasn't technically sealed off from the rest of the world, but was more a small, independent world in and of itself that exchanged information mostly internally, in Russian.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago

Cause there leaked documents were/are on it as well. At some non-ideologic point the interests of all state actors meet. The might makes right mentality of a seasoned bureaucrat is the same everywhere. Which is why the narrative of Wikileaks being funded as a psy OP does not hold up. Such a "attack" would only host one type of document and its journalists wouldn't "attack" all governments equally. But hey, if i betrayed the fourth pillar of democracy and suffered from cognitive dissonance therefore, this not being supported by the "evils" behind it, would be woven into some nice story too.

H8crilA 4y ago

> 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. Who do you think paid for those servers in the past, lol. Seems that the GRU has defunded the project, though - they must have other higher priority projects. Some details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU#Unit_74455 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU#Unit_74455

glenstein 4y ago
The link you shared doesn't appear to mention anything about funding or defunding anything. It seems to be more about coordinated dissemination of documents. I don't feel like I'm any closer to knowing who does or doesn't fund on going operations of WikiLeaks.
- H8crilA 4y ago
  It would be really easy to figure such things out if intelligence agencies published all their activity, but shockingly this is not the world that we live in.

gasull 4y ago

I don't think it's about funding. WikiLeaks likely has enough money from BTC donations a long time ago. The know-how is in Assange's mind, and he's in prison.

vitium_casiri 4y ago

It's amazing the amount of crazy stuff people trick themselves into beleiving due to their hatred of Trump. Wikileaks works for Russia? This wikileaks? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11893886 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11893886

laidoffamazon 4y ago
Most people think Assange was turned by Russian state intelligence after 2013/2014. The "reporting" on Russia vanished after.