5 ms·

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuin

by 206lol 4y ago

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuinely ok for someone to draw the conclusion that, "given the criticism, I cannot support them". Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".

headsoup 4y ago
I think that's why people need to look past the character and heresays and look at the facts and processes. Ignore Assange's character, make him an anonymous person instead and think "is the process X person has gone through for Y actions reasonable/legal/supportable?" Should whistleblowers be supported or vilified?
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  Ignore Assange's character, focus on leaks of dubious, probably state actor origin, precisely timed in their release. Focus on which state propaganda network hosted his show, whom he met with in the embassy, etc.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    Got non-circumstantial evidence for that? I mean there certainly should be some for the seriousness of his pursuit. I don't like the guy, but I also don't like arguments based on political narratives. Is the evidence Assange released factual?
    - vntok 4y ago
      If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves. Even if what you do leak is factually true.
      - headsoup 4y ago
        Sure, that's a moral judgement. What's that got to do with the government's reaction and pursuit since, based on what was released? I mean, if Wikileaks did (I wish they did, political bias ruins everything) release both troves, would your thoughts on the current situation change?
        sangnoir 4y ago
        > What's that got to do with the government's reaction and pursuit since, based on what was released? Nothing - but that moral judgment has a lot to do with some people deciding the cause is not worth supporting after realizing what the cause truly is about.
    - mhh__ 4y ago
      The Nazis spent a lot of time acquiring factual information about the Katyn massacre, it's worth knowing the motives. Assange has certainly played with outright lies e.g. Seth Rich. Most of WikiLeaks output as far as I'm aware is mostly truthful to what was given to them, with the caveat that they are telling a story (e.g. bellingcat have no issues finding dirt on Russians, WikiLeaks don't). They are also very happy to cause collateral damage of their own, IIRC they're very happy to leak personal details & CC numbers of people associated with those they dislike (iirc it was democratic donors in some US state, the data was leaked unredacted).
  - pydry 4y ago
    If the USA were the source of a leaked Russian war crime would that discredit them?
snehk 4y ago
They did thing an and thing a was considered to be okay when one political party benefitted from a. The exact same thing a was then considered to be bad when it didn't benefit that party anymore. It's quite simple. If you didn't criticize me when he first started doing a and even cheered him on and then turn around when the exact same things don't benefit you anymore, don't claim that you were ever cheering him on for the action itself.
naasking 4y ago
> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things What evil things, specifically?
- zzzeek 4y ago
  He preferred the election of Donald Trump and worked to make that happen. His preferences in specific political outcomes are well known: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks... So yes, that would be why $politicalside doesn't like him, because he aligned with a very specific, pro-fascist $politicalside (whether or not he is actually a fascist). downmod away folks but that's why $politicalside doesnt like Assange. He is extremely biased which makes the "journalist" angle look pretty weak. there's your answer
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    Having a preference you don't like is pretty different from "doing evil". I mean, I don't like that preference either, but the documents leaked were real, and I haven't heard that Wikileaks/Assange had equivalent dirt on Trump they could have leaked and didn't.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Even if he did have dirt on Trump and didn't publish it, I'm not sure why that's evil. Discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop was held back before the last election and most journalists still think that was perfectly justified. Either both are evil, or neither are, we should not apply double standards.
    - zzzeek 4y ago
      well a lot of us think Trump was pretty much the definition of evil, i mean, extorted an entire country with the threat of illegally withholding US military aid unless they made up political campaign propaganda for him, sometimes you have to just draw a line, like when it's blindingly obvious Assange preferred helping to install a corrupt grifter to run the US government into the dirt. He hates the US government. A lot of us USians think "try to wreck the US government by installing a mobster as president" is evil.
kerkeslager 4y ago
> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. Are they? What's the "evil" you're accusing them of? If you're going to accuse people of things, don't be vague.
- EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
  I assume things like: a) Alleged sexual assault of staffers (which again, alleged, but could be considered evil) b) Leaking of personal information that is of no public interest, e.g. unredacted SSNs c) Leaking private medical records of otherwise ordinary individuals, including e.g. medical records of teenagers who were raped d) Leaking the names of people who are LGBTQ+ in dictatorial countries where that's illegal, putting their lives in danger e) Timing the release of DNC hack is arguable, but I could see how someone might consider the timing of that release to be evil f) There's some antisemitic stuff happening with Assange/Wikileaks. There's nothing like, glaringly out of line, but there's a whooole lot of stuff that's just over the line. (e.g. use of (((name))), calling his opponents "Jewish" media, employing holocaust denier and denying it, etc) g) Assange himself is quoted as saying, "[We might] have blood on our hands" due to their editorial policy of publishing everything, unredacted, about potentially vulnerable people
  - varjag 4y ago
    Handing over the advance file of leaked cables to Belarusian KGB. Rot in prison, Julian.

by 206lol 4y ago

headsoup 4y ago

I think that's why people need to look past the character and heresays and look at the facts and processes. Ignore Assange's character, make him an anonymous person instead and think "is the process X person has gone through for Y actions reasonable/legal/supportable?" Should whistleblowers be supported or vilified?

kspacewalk2 4y ago
Ignore Assange's character, focus on leaks of dubious, probably state actor origin, precisely timed in their release. Focus on which state propaganda network hosted his show, whom he met with in the embassy, etc.
- headsoup 4y ago
  Got non-circumstantial evidence for that? I mean there certainly should be some for the seriousness of his pursuit. I don't like the guy, but I also don't like arguments based on political narratives. Is the evidence Assange released factual?
  - vntok 4y ago
    If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves. Even if what you do leak is factually true.
    - headsoup 4y ago
      Sure, that's a moral judgement. What's that got to do with the government's reaction and pursuit since, based on what was released? I mean, if Wikileaks did (I wish they did, political bias ruins everything) release both troves, would your thoughts on the current situation change?
      - sangnoir 4y ago
        > What's that got to do with the government's reaction and pursuit since, based on what was released? Nothing - but that moral judgment has a lot to do with some people deciding the cause is not worth supporting after realizing what the cause truly is about.
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    The Nazis spent a lot of time acquiring factual information about the Katyn massacre, it's worth knowing the motives. Assange has certainly played with outright lies e.g. Seth Rich. Most of WikiLeaks output as far as I'm aware is mostly truthful to what was given to them, with the caveat that they are telling a story (e.g. bellingcat have no issues finding dirt on Russians, WikiLeaks don't). They are also very happy to cause collateral damage of their own, IIRC they're very happy to leak personal details & CC numbers of people associated with those they dislike (iirc it was democratic donors in some US state, the data was leaked unredacted).
- pydry 4y ago
  If the USA were the source of a leaked Russian war crime would that discredit them?

snehk 4y ago

They did thing an and thing a was considered to be okay when one political party benefitted from a. The exact same thing a was then considered to be bad when it didn't benefit that party anymore. It's quite simple. If you didn't criticize me when he first started doing a and even cheered him on and then turn around when the exact same things don't benefit you anymore, don't claim that you were ever cheering him on for the action itself.

naasking 4y ago

> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things What evil things, specifically?

zzzeek 4y ago
He preferred the election of Donald Trump and worked to make that happen. His preferences in specific political outcomes are well known: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks... So yes, that would be why $politicalside doesn't like him, because he aligned with a very specific, pro-fascist $politicalside (whether or not he is actually a fascist). downmod away folks but that's why $politicalside doesnt like Assange. He is extremely biased which makes the "journalist" angle look pretty weak. there's your answer
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  Having a preference you don't like is pretty different from "doing evil". I mean, I don't like that preference either, but the documents leaked were real, and I haven't heard that Wikileaks/Assange had equivalent dirt on Trump they could have leaked and didn't.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Even if he did have dirt on Trump and didn't publish it, I'm not sure why that's evil. Discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop was held back before the last election and most journalists still think that was perfectly justified. Either both are evil, or neither are, we should not apply double standards.
  - zzzeek 4y ago
    well a lot of us think Trump was pretty much the definition of evil, i mean, extorted an entire country with the threat of illegally withholding US military aid unless they made up political campaign propaganda for him, sometimes you have to just draw a line, like when it's blindingly obvious Assange preferred helping to install a corrupt grifter to run the US government into the dirt. He hates the US government. A lot of us USians think "try to wreck the US government by installing a mobster as president" is evil.

kerkeslager 4y ago

> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. Are they? What's the "evil" you're accusing them of? If you're going to accuse people of things, don't be vague.

EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
I assume things like: a) Alleged sexual assault of staffers (which again, alleged, but could be considered evil) b) Leaking of personal information that is of no public interest, e.g. unredacted SSNs c) Leaking private medical records of otherwise ordinary individuals, including e.g. medical records of teenagers who were raped d) Leaking the names of people who are LGBTQ+ in dictatorial countries where that's illegal, putting their lives in danger e) Timing the release of DNC hack is arguable, but I could see how someone might consider the timing of that release to be evil f) There's some antisemitic stuff happening with Assange/Wikileaks. There's nothing like, glaringly out of line, but there's a whooole lot of stuff that's just over the line. (e.g. use of (((name))), calling his opponents "Jewish" media, employing holocaust denier and denying it, etc) g) Assange himself is quoted as saying, "[We might] have blood on our hands" due to their editorial policy of publishing everything, unredacted, about potentially vulnerable people
- varjag 4y ago
  Handing over the advance file of leaked cables to Belarusian KGB. Rot in prison, Julian.