7 ms·

Thanks, I will watch it. I agree, mostly. I stopped caring about Assange since the incident because selective information feeding is not a whistleblowing move

by mrtksn 4y ago

Thanks, 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.

Iolaum 4y ago
Whistleblowers are allowed to have an agenda. In practice most do. But for society it's better that shady stuff get revealed than them staying hidden because the whistleblower is not a paragon of morality.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Whistleblowers can do whatever they want and be judged accordingly.
  - throwaway829 4y ago
    judged, sure. Imprisoned, only in banana republics.
- jtode 4y ago
  Not if shady is being exposed so that fascist can take its place.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    Who's the fascist you speak of? Is it the government that set up the ministry of truth?
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      Can I have link to the ministry of truth website, Google doesn’t seem to return it. Google search is very bad these days.
      - mc32 4y ago
        It’s probably the one that said not to use ivermectin and now say that what they said is that they didn’t recommend it meanwhile all news orgs and social media suppressed any mention of ivermectin and when they did it was to confound it with veterinary medicine.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        Right, so there’s no ministry of truth but choices of some media companies to promote government recommendations that turned out to be best to their knowledge and not absolute truth?
        mc32 4y ago
        No government officials promoted certain narratives which have been proven false and they walk things back and the news doesn’t push back on that. Moreover the government had embeds and was in communication with social media and traditional coordinating what to disseminate and what to suppress. The. You have more dignitaries at the WEF and UN COP saying how wonderful it was that Covid prepared people and provided for better government control…
        mrtksn 4y ago
        So there's no ministry of truth and the US Govt was wrong on some aspects and some of the news organisations didn't pushed back?
        mc32 4y ago
        Oh ok. Obviously Russia and China are not fascist because they have never said they are fascist. Got it; thanks!
    - sonotathrowaway 4y ago
      Probably Putin - you know, the guy that pays him to not leak Russian documents.
  - philippejara 4y ago
    You mean the fascist that kept bombing a country his own invaded because of "self-defense"? the same one who presided over the biggest government surveillance leak in the entire history, and then made sure to hunt down the leaker into the only place that would provide him safety and now conveniently uses it to discredit him? Or you mean the fascist warhawk that actually started several wars that ravaged the middle-east and passed the patriot act to give the government untold power over its citizens, both with bipartisan support I might add? How can Trump be seen with such disdain in comparison when at worst he's just a more incompetent version of Obama with a social media addiction and republican slant. The NSA scandal was merely a decade ago, george w bush wasn't that far back either, how short are the memories. If anything his unconditional withdraw of all troops in afghanistan is the biggest anti-fascist action the last 3 presidents have done, although this one action certainly doesn't put him above being one given he wasn't even pulling the breaks on their actions beforehand.
    - jtode 4y ago
      Your text is already faded enough that you must be clear that a lot of folks don't agree with your sentiment here, but let me try to engage constructively here, by pointing out that your text betrays a complete ignorance of what exactly fascism is and how it acts upon societies it infects. Now if you want to talk about the many times that Democrats and Republicans all had a big lovefest so they could all vote together to invade a country, I'm with you on that, but it's a problem of both parties, as the voting record clearly demonstrates. What's been happening the last decade or so is another thing entirely.
      - philippejara 4y ago
        > Your text is already faded enough that you must be clear that a lot of folks don't agree with your sentiment here Funnily enough, so is yours. What I highlighted pointed towards government becoming increasingly overbearing and ramping up surveillance on its citizens(NSA and patriot act), military extremism(patriot act again and the middle east), paternalism over other cultures(fear that the people would choose the "wrong"side in a country they invaded as an excuse to keep troops or to install proxy governments), and the list goes on. You're at a point that covering true stories like the hunter biden laptop(that now journalists are verifying its authenticity) have made people like glenn greenwald persona non-grata in mainstream journalism circles, while having the intelligence agencies saying it is false. You have people that risked and are paying with their life to make information known to the public demonized because apparently leaking things about the candidate I like is bad, regardless of it being true. You have people asking for oversight for the contributions to Ukraine being labelled as russian assets(ie:enemy of our great state). You have intelligence agencies being labelled as some all knowing benevolent protectors of the populace not even a decade after the NSA leaks. The only thing that could be disguising it is because as it stands mostly the democrats seem to be on this publically, but make no mistake the moment push comes to shove the republicans will also take such position as they had taken before trump, and with thunderous applause from the "bipartisan" population if the current outlook is something to go by. Fascism has been acting on the american society for a long time, Trump just coincidentally showed where the allegiances lied once someone that wasn't a career politician took over, luckily for them the man was an incompetent buffoon with his own laundry list of problems who got assimilated into the machine very fast, even if he would say otherwise. If all of this for you isn't clear signs of fascism and instead trump, who mostly just inherited the actions of his predecessors is(making him just as much as the others I might add), we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
- davrosthedalek 4y ago
  You can be a whistleblower, you can be a journalist. I don't think you can be both. It's the job of a journalist to keep personal grudges out. It would be their job to keep political bias out too, but I guess we can't have that.
  - fncivivue7 4y ago
    Where have you been the last decade? Journos haven't been impartial since the sixties.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      They weren't impartial then either.
      - aliqot 4y ago
        they were during broadcast, by law.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        willcipriano 4y ago
        Want to buy a bridge?
        pessimizer 4y ago
        That wasn't a law. The fairness doctrine meant that when they aired something considered controversial, they had to give equal time to the opposing viewpoint. That didn't mean they had to be fair, since everybody got latitude on what was considered controversial i.e. if they ban you for something on twitter now, it wouldn't have been "controversial" then, it would have been settled, so you'd get no time without at least going to court over it. Also, they could just give some objector 2 minutes to make their case into a camera and play it during the news. The things that would end up being "controversial" are things that your local Chamber of Commerce or an international fossil fuel lobbying group would find controversial. Its scary how easy you think it is to dictate actual fairness and impartiality in law, though. The only places that have laws like that are extremely authoritarian and corrupt, like Zimbabwe.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  Yeah I definitely don't agree with that opinion. Whistleblowing is about helping the public By doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's a highly moral act. When society puts a higher value on selfishness over selflessness corruption becomes a big part of the problem. We already live in a world where people are too selfish we don't need any more of that.
leereeves 4y ago
What "selective information feeding"? Did Assange have some damaging information about Trump that he refused to leak?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It's just made up. The "logic" goes: if there was bad stuff about H. Clinton out there, there must be worse stuff about Trump out there, because Trump is worse than H. Clinton. Therefore, Assange ignored all of the bad stuff (that neither the FBI, constant congressional investigations, numerous private intelligence firms, and every single anti-Trump media outlet spent nearly a decade at this point looking for still have yet to find) just to target poor H. Clinton. The most bizarre part of this theory is why anyone would think that Trump, a NYC real estate guy who wasn't good at actually building things so turned into a guy who sold his branding to real estate projects, a wrestler, a game show host, would have more or worse skeletons in his closet than H. Clinton, somebody at the center of one of the two ruling parties of the world hegemon for 25 years. We know everything that H. Clinton did (she was proud before she wasn't, like the rest of the New Democrats), so the leaks were literally about her corruption and DNC corruption during the election. The DNC also fired all of their executives over it because they were obviously corrupt. If the DNC were actually concerned about corruption rather than being caught, you'd think they'd celebrate Assange for smoking it out. I always used to wonder how dictatorships or strikebreakers could call in huge groups of thugs to beat up people at protests, or to show up to rallies for the dictator. A lot of them are paid, of course, but a lot of them just have the mindset that really prioritizes trying to figure out if Trump was misrepresenting his net worth by exaggerating the success of some of his buildings in order to secure financing from new investors, over what H. Clinton did to Haiti. Or Honduras. Or Iraq. But, you know, I think the Trump Foundation was a way for him to avoid paying taxes on a painting in the lobby of his building. Lock him up.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  We have evidence that when the DNC was hacked, so was the RNC. Only one of those hacks has ever been released. Unless you believe republicans have literally never done anything wrong, something doesn't add up.
colordrops 4y ago
It's your prerogative to not care about someone being imprisoned indefinitely and illegally as a political prisoner because they have different politics than you, but it's not a virtue.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  I don't care about legality, I'm not a judge or in the law enforcement. Was he wronged? Yes. Did he wronged the people who supported him in an attempt to get back to people wronged him? Yes. Well, then it's up to him and his remaining supporters to pursue justice. I don't care as long as he doesn't do more harm to me.
  - brainphreeze 4y ago
    Curious, how has he harmed you?
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      I have family in Turkey and spent good chunk of my adulthood in this country. Trump was a big enabler for Erdogan, to the point that 2020 election results were broadcasted live all day together with live graphics and stats just as the elections in Turkey as it was viewed as Erdogans last hope if Trump wins again. Erdogan is destroying my alma mater, his ridiculous economics are having very bad impact on my parents and friends, kids are sent to religious schools in much larger numbers than before which means social problems in the years to coma and the general totalitarian approach of his is something I don’t like enduring. That’s one aspect.
      - r721 4y ago
        On WikiLeaks and Turkey topic see also story of this pretty controversial leak: >Why Did WikiLeaks Help Dox Most of Turkey’s Adult Female Population? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-he...
px43 4y ago
People gave him some crap because he didn't leak the white rose Trump leak, but it was already everywhere and he mostly just declined to promote it. Other than that, there were no Trump related leaks in the inbox, so it's not like he leaked for one side of an election, but not the other. Also Trump's corruption was already known far and wide. It's the kind of shit he brags about. I was pretty shocked not only at how far right media twisted the contents of the Podesta emails into wild conspiracy theories like PizzaGate etc, but fully disgusted at the sheer volume of people who just ate all that up without a moment of critical thinking. Even still, no sane person thought that Trump was going to win. Even the couple days before the election, all the polls had Hillary up by a wide margin. I highly doubt that Julian was hoping for a Trump presidency. I think it's much more likely that he was imagining a Clinton presidency, but where people were a lot more critical of her actions.
- jtode 4y ago
  Lots of people were saying he was gonna win, including me to everyone around me. It's not that we were so smart, I'm sure of that because Michael Moore is an idiot much of the time. Nobody cares, though, what he thought he was doing. In social justice circles, we talk about impact being what matters, not intention. There's a lot of impact that he has to answer for.
  - rsaarsoo 4y ago
    You seem to assume, that one can know what the impact of one's actions will be. That's basically asking for the ability to predict the future. I don't want to imply that the outcomes don't matter. But at least I prefer living in a justice system where planned murder and fatal accident are not considered as equal offences, although outcomes might be the same.
lynx23 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:5
Timwi 4y ago
> selective information feeding is not a whistleblowing move but political manipulation. The correct response to this is more whistleblowing, not less.

by mrtksn 4y ago

Iolaum 4y ago

Whistleblowers are allowed to have an agenda. In practice most do. But for society it's better that shady stuff get revealed than them staying hidden because the whistleblower is not a paragon of morality.

mrtksn 4y ago
Whistleblowers can do whatever they want and be judged accordingly.
- throwaway829 4y ago
  judged, sure. Imprisoned, only in banana republics.
jtode 4y ago
Not if shady is being exposed so that fascist can take its place.
- headsoup 4y ago
  Who's the fascist you speak of? Is it the government that set up the ministry of truth?
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Can I have link to the ministry of truth website, Google doesn’t seem to return it. Google search is very bad these days.
    - mc32 4y ago
      It’s probably the one that said not to use ivermectin and now say that what they said is that they didn’t recommend it meanwhile all news orgs and social media suppressed any mention of ivermectin and when they did it was to confound it with veterinary medicine.
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        Right, so there’s no ministry of truth but choices of some media companies to promote government recommendations that turned out to be best to their knowledge and not absolute truth?
        mc32 4y ago
        No government officials promoted certain narratives which have been proven false and they walk things back and the news doesn’t push back on that. Moreover the government had embeds and was in communication with social media and traditional coordinating what to disseminate and what to suppress. The. You have more dignitaries at the WEF and UN COP saying how wonderful it was that Covid prepared people and provided for better government control…
        mrtksn 4y ago
        So there's no ministry of truth and the US Govt was wrong on some aspects and some of the news organisations didn't pushed back?
        mc32 4y ago
        Oh ok. Obviously Russia and China are not fascist because they have never said they are fascist. Got it; thanks!
  - sonotathrowaway 4y ago
    Probably Putin - you know, the guy that pays him to not leak Russian documents.
- philippejara 4y ago
  You mean the fascist that kept bombing a country his own invaded because of "self-defense"? the same one who presided over the biggest government surveillance leak in the entire history, and then made sure to hunt down the leaker into the only place that would provide him safety and now conveniently uses it to discredit him? Or you mean the fascist warhawk that actually started several wars that ravaged the middle-east and passed the patriot act to give the government untold power over its citizens, both with bipartisan support I might add? How can Trump be seen with such disdain in comparison when at worst he's just a more incompetent version of Obama with a social media addiction and republican slant. The NSA scandal was merely a decade ago, george w bush wasn't that far back either, how short are the memories. If anything his unconditional withdraw of all troops in afghanistan is the biggest anti-fascist action the last 3 presidents have done, although this one action certainly doesn't put him above being one given he wasn't even pulling the breaks on their actions beforehand.
  - jtode 4y ago
    Your text is already faded enough that you must be clear that a lot of folks don't agree with your sentiment here, but let me try to engage constructively here, by pointing out that your text betrays a complete ignorance of what exactly fascism is and how it acts upon societies it infects. Now if you want to talk about the many times that Democrats and Republicans all had a big lovefest so they could all vote together to invade a country, I'm with you on that, but it's a problem of both parties, as the voting record clearly demonstrates. What's been happening the last decade or so is another thing entirely.
    - philippejara 4y ago
      > Your text is already faded enough that you must be clear that a lot of folks don't agree with your sentiment here Funnily enough, so is yours. What I highlighted pointed towards government becoming increasingly overbearing and ramping up surveillance on its citizens(NSA and patriot act), military extremism(patriot act again and the middle east), paternalism over other cultures(fear that the people would choose the "wrong"side in a country they invaded as an excuse to keep troops or to install proxy governments), and the list goes on. You're at a point that covering true stories like the hunter biden laptop(that now journalists are verifying its authenticity) have made people like glenn greenwald persona non-grata in mainstream journalism circles, while having the intelligence agencies saying it is false. You have people that risked and are paying with their life to make information known to the public demonized because apparently leaking things about the candidate I like is bad, regardless of it being true. You have people asking for oversight for the contributions to Ukraine being labelled as russian assets(ie:enemy of our great state). You have intelligence agencies being labelled as some all knowing benevolent protectors of the populace not even a decade after the NSA leaks. The only thing that could be disguising it is because as it stands mostly the democrats seem to be on this publically, but make no mistake the moment push comes to shove the republicans will also take such position as they had taken before trump, and with thunderous applause from the "bipartisan" population if the current outlook is something to go by. Fascism has been acting on the american society for a long time, Trump just coincidentally showed where the allegiances lied once someone that wasn't a career politician took over, luckily for them the man was an incompetent buffoon with his own laundry list of problems who got assimilated into the machine very fast, even if he would say otherwise. If all of this for you isn't clear signs of fascism and instead trump, who mostly just inherited the actions of his predecessors is(making him just as much as the others I might add), we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
davrosthedalek 4y ago
You can be a whistleblower, you can be a journalist. I don't think you can be both. It's the job of a journalist to keep personal grudges out. It would be their job to keep political bias out too, but I guess we can't have that.
- fncivivue7 4y ago
  Where have you been the last decade? Journos haven't been impartial since the sixties.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    They weren't impartial then either.
    - aliqot 4y ago
      they were during broadcast, by law.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        Want to buy a bridge?
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        That wasn't a law. The fairness doctrine meant that when they aired something considered controversial, they had to give equal time to the opposing viewpoint. That didn't mean they had to be fair, since everybody got latitude on what was considered controversial i.e. if they ban you for something on twitter now, it wouldn't have been "controversial" then, it would have been settled, so you'd get no time without at least going to court over it. Also, they could just give some objector 2 minutes to make their case into a camera and play it during the news. The things that would end up being "controversial" are things that your local Chamber of Commerce or an international fossil fuel lobbying group would find controversial. Its scary how easy you think it is to dictate actual fairness and impartiality in law, though. The only places that have laws like that are extremely authoritarian and corrupt, like Zimbabwe.
trinsic2 4y ago
Yeah I definitely don't agree with that opinion. Whistleblowing is about helping the public By doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's a highly moral act. When society puts a higher value on selfishness over selflessness corruption becomes a big part of the problem. We already live in a world where people are too selfish we don't need any more of that.

leereeves 4y ago

What "selective information feeding"? Did Assange have some damaging information about Trump that he refused to leak?

pessimizer 4y ago
It's just made up. The "logic" goes: if there was bad stuff about H. Clinton out there, there must be worse stuff about Trump out there, because Trump is worse than H. Clinton. Therefore, Assange ignored all of the bad stuff (that neither the FBI, constant congressional investigations, numerous private intelligence firms, and every single anti-Trump media outlet spent nearly a decade at this point looking for still have yet to find) just to target poor H. Clinton. The most bizarre part of this theory is why anyone would think that Trump, a NYC real estate guy who wasn't good at actually building things so turned into a guy who sold his branding to real estate projects, a wrestler, a game show host, would have more or worse skeletons in his closet than H. Clinton, somebody at the center of one of the two ruling parties of the world hegemon for 25 years. We know everything that H. Clinton did (she was proud before she wasn't, like the rest of the New Democrats), so the leaks were literally about her corruption and DNC corruption during the election. The DNC also fired all of their executives over it because they were obviously corrupt. If the DNC were actually concerned about corruption rather than being caught, you'd think they'd celebrate Assange for smoking it out. I always used to wonder how dictatorships or strikebreakers could call in huge groups of thugs to beat up people at protests, or to show up to rallies for the dictator. A lot of them are paid, of course, but a lot of them just have the mindset that really prioritizes trying to figure out if Trump was misrepresenting his net worth by exaggerating the success of some of his buildings in order to secure financing from new investors, over what H. Clinton did to Haiti. Or Honduras. Or Iraq. But, you know, I think the Trump Foundation was a way for him to avoid paying taxes on a painting in the lobby of his building. Lock him up.
mrguyorama 4y ago
We have evidence that when the DNC was hacked, so was the RNC. Only one of those hacks has ever been released. Unless you believe republicans have literally never done anything wrong, something doesn't add up.

colordrops 4y ago

It's your prerogative to not care about someone being imprisoned indefinitely and illegally as a political prisoner because they have different politics than you, but it's not a virtue.

mrtksn 4y ago
I don't care about legality, I'm not a judge or in the law enforcement. Was he wronged? Yes. Did he wronged the people who supported him in an attempt to get back to people wronged him? Yes. Well, then it's up to him and his remaining supporters to pursue justice. I don't care as long as he doesn't do more harm to me.
- brainphreeze 4y ago
  Curious, how has he harmed you?
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    I have family in Turkey and spent good chunk of my adulthood in this country. Trump was a big enabler for Erdogan, to the point that 2020 election results were broadcasted live all day together with live graphics and stats just as the elections in Turkey as it was viewed as Erdogans last hope if Trump wins again. Erdogan is destroying my alma mater, his ridiculous economics are having very bad impact on my parents and friends, kids are sent to religious schools in much larger numbers than before which means social problems in the years to coma and the general totalitarian approach of his is something I don’t like enduring. That’s one aspect.
    - r721 4y ago
      On WikiLeaks and Turkey topic see also story of this pretty controversial leak: >Why Did WikiLeaks Help Dox Most of Turkey’s Adult Female Population? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-he...

px43 4y ago

People gave him some crap because he didn't leak the white rose Trump leak, but it was already everywhere and he mostly just declined to promote it. Other than that, there were no Trump related leaks in the inbox, so it's not like he leaked for one side of an election, but not the other. Also Trump's corruption was already known far and wide. It's the kind of shit he brags about. I was pretty shocked not only at how far right media twisted the contents of the Podesta emails into wild conspiracy theories like PizzaGate etc, but fully disgusted at the sheer volume of people who just ate all that up without a moment of critical thinking. Even still, no sane person thought that Trump was going to win. Even the couple days before the election, all the polls had Hillary up by a wide margin. I highly doubt that Julian was hoping for a Trump presidency. I think it's much more likely that he was imagining a Clinton presidency, but where people were a lot more critical of her actions.

jtode 4y ago
Lots of people were saying he was gonna win, including me to everyone around me. It's not that we were so smart, I'm sure of that because Michael Moore is an idiot much of the time. Nobody cares, though, what he thought he was doing. In social justice circles, we talk about impact being what matters, not intention. There's a lot of impact that he has to answer for.
- rsaarsoo 4y ago
  You seem to assume, that one can know what the impact of one's actions will be. That's basically asking for the ability to predict the future. I don't want to imply that the outcomes don't matter. But at least I prefer living in a justice system where planned murder and fatal accident are not considered as equal offences, although outcomes might be the same.

lynx23 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:5

Timwi 4y ago

> selective information feeding is not a whistleblowing move but political manipulation. The correct response to this is more whistleblowing, not less.