12 ms·
I think they lost quite a bit of public support when they selectively leaked documents during election time.
by mrtksn 4y ago
I think they lost quite a bit of public support when they selectively leaked documents during election time.
- kome 4y agoI guess they leaked what they had; leaks are not bipartisan
- input_sh 4y agoThat's just inaccurate. For example, they didn't even respond to Panama Papers leaker who approached them before he approached Süddeutsche Zeitung.
- kome 4y agono 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 agoI'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.
- px43 4y agoSounds to me like the leaker was trying to get their attention without handing over all the documents. There are plenty of reasonable explanations where all parties are telling the truth here. I bet the Wikileaks inbox was flooded with more straightforward submissions, and the Panama Papers leaker wasn't being entirely forthcoming.
- input_sh 4y agoLeaks are terabytes in size. Of course he's gonna provide a small sample and then wait for the news organization to provide him a secure way to transfer it all. Say you got your hands on 2.6 terabytes leak. Where would you upload it before approaching a news org while preserving your identity? And keep in mind that your average leaker is probably less tech-savvy than your average HN viewer.
- f1refly 4y agowhy would you upload it anywhere? Just send an encrypted micro sd card by mail.
- input_sh 4y agoCool, say you've done so despite obvious issues (no microSD is over 1 TB, since TrueCrypt is no more there's no obvious trusted encryption software for that sort of thing, then there's borders, being on a security camera at a post office, etc). Which address would you ship it it to so it reaches Wikileaks?
- f1refly 4y agoSo you need to send two microsds, fine. You'll probably want to use something more trustworthy like luks with a detached header and a largeish offset. Finally, drive some tens of kilometres and throw it into a mailbox somewhere in the fields at 3 o'clock. I don't know what address wikileaks has, but then again I never tried to contact them.
- eurasiantiger 4y agoBut this way media executives get to extort shady people for keeping the spotlight away.
- vintermann 4y agoIf that is true, then that's still no allegation of political selectivity (by US partisan standards - of course, WikiLeaks doesn't deny being political). I see no reason to doubt Hrafnsson's statement that they would have wanted to publish them in full. There could have been any number of explanations why they didn't follow up the alledged inquiry from the Panama Papers leaker - most likely it came in the "spam folder" equivalent. It can't be easy for WikiLeaks to separate the wheat from the chaff, and Assange had very little opportunity to do it at the time.
- aa-jv 4y ago
- 1337shadow 4y ago
- enraged_camel 4y agoWhat is WEF?
- mrtksn 4y agoWorld Economic Forum. In essence, it's an NGO with globalist agenda and as a result the boogyman of the ant-globalist movement. There are some valid criticism and very creative conspiracy theories around it. Capitol invading shamans level stuff, highly recommend it.
- r721 4y agoWorld Economic Forum, latest bogeyman in conspiracy theorists' circles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum https://fortune.com/2022/06/02/davos-death-threats-world-economic-forum-target-of-online-conspiracy-theorists/ https://fortune.com/2022/06/02/davos-death-threats-world-eco... (archived: https://archive.is/icFpU https://archive.is/icFpU)
- nocobot 4y agoit's the world economic forum. but the way it's used here it seems like more of a stand in for vague economic antisemitism
- 1337shadow 4y ago
- stavros 4y ago
- throwawaythekey 4y agoI'm not sure if I buy this. Any sufficiently motivated leaker could just release to another source if wikileaks were blocking important information.
- theCrowing 4y agoIt's not the blocking of information for what wikileaks is known...
- dalbasal 4y agoSo, this doesn't settle anything but... If you listen to WikiLeaks people or the greater associated clique, I think it's clear that they're a politically oriented group. It's not a conventional/general journalistic ethos. More like a party publication. This is my opinion, and mostly based on speaking to people in Melbourne att of Assange's initial persecution. In any case, even if they were just motivated by not getting scooped, the actions stand.
- birdyrooster 4y agolol “persecution”
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago> I think it's clear that they're a politically oriented group. It's not a conventional/general journalistic ethos The same goes for any journalistic outlet. It's not difficult to guess the political leanings of most New York Times journalists. Hello, 1619 Project!
- AndyMcConachie 4y agoI've honestly been amazed in these past few years how many people have started hating Wikileaks for leaking things that didn't agree with either their interpretation of the world, or made their favorite politician look bad. The only interpretation I can draw from it is that many people crave ignorance. And when they're confronted with something that challenges their ignorance they blame the messenger. Overall I find the sentiment pathetic and cowardly. I want to know what my government and powerful people are up to. I have a right to know it and Wikileaks was giving me information about this. IMO people who get angry at WL for telling them what powerful people and governments do behind their back are pathetic bootlickers.
- andirk 4y agoA lot of people in the USA were fans of Wikileaks when it was almost entirely anti the current administration of the time, which was Bush Jr. Not by design but because that's who was in charge of the illegal offensive wars at the time. But then the diplomatic cable leaks in 2010 included high profile Democratic party leaders, and that's when I believe people not only turned their backs on Wikileaks but leaks in general. They already knew their enemies were garbage and they didn't want to admit their own were too.
- keewee7 4y agoMost people were supportive of their leaks that were critical of the Obama administration aggressive use of drone strikes, his support for Israel etc. It was only when they turned out to be pro-Russian propagandists that the support turned.
- loup-vaillant 4y agoWikileaks, pro-Russian propagandists? I believe they have leaks on Russia too, so we're gonna need something more solid than "published documents that happened to come from Russian agents".
- ix-ix 4y ago
- noduerme 4y agoI was such a massive and uncritical supporter of Julian Assange for his breathtakingly ballsy attempt to free information... right up until the moment he threw his chips in with the FSB, the ultimate disinformation crew who believe all information is only a set of lies waiting to be discovered and people waiting to be manipulated. Since then, fuck that dude. He didn't live up to the promise. Whether out of cowardice or greed, he betrayed his own beliefs under pressure, and it has unfortunately tainted everything he ever touched. The world of distributed whistleblowing could have been better with any avatar besides him, but then again almost anyone in that position would have been assassinated in character. My main beef with him is that he pawned himself to Putin when the 2016 election was on the line, and it's entirely unclear why he did that. At least I understand why Snowden eats and spews Russian crap all day. Poor guy got stuck in the wrong airport. Assange is much more insidious.
- OtomotO 4y agoI am sorry for my (honest) ignorance, but: What did Assange (or WikiLeaks) leak that was not the (verified?) truth? I understand that some people are upset for it being "one-sided" but it's an absolute honest question: Did they ever leak something that turned out to be a lie? Or (and please don't take this as an attack, it's not meant to be one) was it just that the leak hit "the wrong guys" so to speak?
- andirk 4y agoIt began as mostly anti-Bush Jr. admin leaks because that's who was in charge. But once the leaks became ubiquitous over time, yeah the leaks began hitting "the wrong guys", eh "gal".
- noduerme 4y agoNo. Not that it hit the wrong guys. He (Assange) was fed a ton of arbitrary/meaningless email which had no major significance, stolen from Hillary Clinton a few days before an election - literally fed to his organization by Russian intelligence - and chose to publish it as if it would incriminate her, to create the appearance of leaking something important and so stain her and help the Russians tilt the election toward their ally Trump. There was no purpose of free information served by that act of burning Assange and WikiLeaks years of trust. It was the most useless waste of public goodwill in the history of whistleblowing and only came about because he was pressured into it. It was a pure one time self-immolation of every good he'd ever accomplished in the service of Putin.
- px43 4y agoWatch the Laura Poitras movie "Risk"[1] if you want a really good feel for why Julian has every reason in the world to disrupt the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. It's an amazing movie that came out at a really unfortunate time for Laura, in that it got lost in the noise of the dcleaks drama. Anti-Julian people hated the movie because it humanized him too much, and pro-Julian people hated the movie because it made him look weak. It was a deeply personal look into the life of a man who suddenly got caught up in the polarizing shitstorm of the 2016 elections. The leaks definitely came from GRU hackers, but it seems like the GRU was super careful to sell it to Julian as a DNC insider leak, and in his excitement to stick it to the Clinton campaign, he probably overlooked a lot of red flags that he might have caught if didn't have a personal grudge to satisfy. I voted for Hillary, and I'd do it again, she'd have made a fine US president. I also seeded the hell out of the Podesta emails, because people deserve to know about political corruption. I also believe that the espionage crimes that Julian is charged with are 100% horseshit, and going after journalists like that sets an incredibly bad precedent coming from a nation that purports to be a world leader in press freedoms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(2016_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(2016_film)
- mrtksn 4y agoThanks, I will watch it. I agree, mostly. I stopped caring about Assange since the incident because selective information feeding is not a whistleblowing move but political manipulation. I don't have doubt that people representing my interests are corrupt to some degree but I don't want them eliminated in favor for people who don't represent my interest and are just as corrupt but protected from expose because the interests of the leaker aligns with them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- VoodooJuJu 4y agoThey lost support when they leaked information about the side that mass media is aligned with.