3 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  It 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 ago
  No. 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.
  - OtomotO 4y ago
    But if those mails were arbitrary and meaningless why would the media ("mainstream media" without any kind of conspiracy vibe) make such a big deal out of it? Because of the timeframe? Other than that I feel a democracy includes duties by the voters. If, for whatever reason, they can't decide what to make of some information, it's a systematic problem.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      This is the same media that pilloried Obama for wearing a tan suit, and ran a day long expose on Trump wanting an extra scoop of ice cream. Making a big deal out of meaningless stuff in politics is sort of their bread and butter.
      - OtomotO 4y ago
        So then this is the actual problem, yet Wikileaks was criticized for telling (part of) the truth?
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        The US media absolutely is A problem, but telling partial truths doesn't actually count as telling the truth. Assange openly stated he judged leaks on "impact" and obviously timed things near the end of his tenure in order to stir more shit. I don't consider that airing dirty laundry, I consider that attempting to influence things. There is a difference between "look at this bad thing a person did, and consider it over a course of time so you can make reasoned decisions about it" and "THE ELECTION IS TOMORROW HERE'S STUFF THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN BE SURE IS TRUE NO TIME TO THINK JUST ACT ON IMPULSE".
  - geneiumgquesn 4y ago
  - 4y ago
- shapefrog 4y ago
  > Did they ever leak something that turned out to be a lie? Steve Jobs died of Aids not cancer "leak" looks a pretty dubious revelation. When you are a "journalist" dumping every document that a high school kid could photoshop in seconds that comes your way there is bound to be a bunch of lies, defamation and disinformation
- djur 4y ago
  The main three things Assange/Wikileaks did that lost my assumption of good faith: * Innuendo regarding Seth Rich (Assange clearly had no information on this subject and should have been honest about it); * Falsely presenting a leaked cable about Robert Mueller bringing a sample of uranium to Russia as part of an investigation as related to the supposed Uranium One scandal; * Privately corresponding with Donald Trump, Jr. to support the campaign and ask for favors.
fallingknife 4y ago
So you were a massive supporter of Julian Assange, but at the same time you believe the US Government's story about him to be 100% truth? There's not much overlap between people who support Julian Assange and people who trust the government.

OtomotO 4y ago

I 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 ago
It 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 ago
No. 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.
- OtomotO 4y ago
  But if those mails were arbitrary and meaningless why would the media ("mainstream media" without any kind of conspiracy vibe) make such a big deal out of it? Because of the timeframe? Other than that I feel a democracy includes duties by the voters. If, for whatever reason, they can't decide what to make of some information, it's a systematic problem.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    This is the same media that pilloried Obama for wearing a tan suit, and ran a day long expose on Trump wanting an extra scoop of ice cream. Making a big deal out of meaningless stuff in politics is sort of their bread and butter.
    - OtomotO 4y ago
      So then this is the actual problem, yet Wikileaks was criticized for telling (part of) the truth?
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        The US media absolutely is A problem, but telling partial truths doesn't actually count as telling the truth. Assange openly stated he judged leaks on "impact" and obviously timed things near the end of his tenure in order to stir more shit. I don't consider that airing dirty laundry, I consider that attempting to influence things. There is a difference between "look at this bad thing a person did, and consider it over a course of time so you can make reasoned decisions about it" and "THE ELECTION IS TOMORROW HERE'S STUFF THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN BE SURE IS TRUE NO TIME TO THINK JUST ACT ON IMPULSE".
- geneiumgquesn 4y ago
- 4y ago
shapefrog 4y ago
> Did they ever leak something that turned out to be a lie? Steve Jobs died of Aids not cancer "leak" looks a pretty dubious revelation. When you are a "journalist" dumping every document that a high school kid could photoshop in seconds that comes your way there is bound to be a bunch of lies, defamation and disinformation
djur 4y ago
The main three things Assange/Wikileaks did that lost my assumption of good faith: * Innuendo regarding Seth Rich (Assange clearly had no information on this subject and should have been honest about it); * Falsely presenting a leaked cable about Robert Mueller bringing a sample of uranium to Russia as part of an investigation as related to the supposed Uranium One scandal; * Privately corresponding with Donald Trump, Jr. to support the campaign and ask for favors.

fallingknife 4y ago

So you were a massive supporter of Julian Assange, but at the same time you believe the US Government's story about him to be 100% truth? There's not much overlap between people who support Julian Assange and people who trust the government.