4 ms·

It's not really accurate to call him a whistleblower. He was acting as a conduit of information for whistleblowers, though he exercised his own discretion to de

by _djo_ 2y ago

It's not really accurate to call him a whistleblower. He was acting as a conduit of information for whistleblowers, though he exercised his own discretion to decide which whistleblowers to release for. The reason he was charged by the US is because rather than just being a recipient of leaked documents he took an active part in helping an insider obtain them by breaking internal security controls. That's crossing a line and is something journalists are careful to never do.

soulofmischief 2y ago
A google search defines "whistleblower" as a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity. I fail to see the material difference. He was also a journalist.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  There's more to this than just googling for a basic definition. When he provided tools and direct guidance to Chelsea Manning to access classified information and when he and others breached the Congressional Research Service to leak documents from there he went far beyond what any professional journalist would do and lost the associated protections.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    Please don't patronize me just because you were wrong about the definition of whistleblower. > went far beyond what any professional journalist would do A useless statement without contextualization, but you can spare the contextualization because it's a moot point; Assange, running his own outfit, is free to decide for himself what kind of journalist he wishes to be. He doesn't have to follow CNN's playbook because he doesn't work for CNN. I'm not defending the lack of censorship which may have put lives at immediate risk, but that's also not the basis on which the US government has sought his extradition. The basis of their argument had to do with the act of allegedly providing Manning the means of acquiring the data. > lost the associated protections You're downplaying the significance of the Cablegate leaks. The US went to great lengths to prosecute and get revenge on everyone involved, including Manning. I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make here, as you're shifting goalposts.
    - _djo_ 2y ago
      That’s an oddly hostile response. Just because you call yourself a journalist it doesn’t mean you’re free to do whatever you want and still claim journalism protections. It doesn’t matter where you are, journalism does not include hacking into or otherwise intentionally and actively stealing information. Doing that rightfully opens you up to criminal charges.
      - soulofmischief 2y ago
        Please don't mischaracterize my post, either. Just because I pushed back on your argument doesn't make my rebuttal hostile. > It doesn’t matter where you are, journalism does not include hacking into or otherwise intentionally and actively stealing information We see things very differently, the difference is that you are gatekeeping journalism and hacktivism, while I'm not. I don't feel like devolving into a meta-argument, so I'll leave you to think on it.
        CRConrad 2y ago
        Or you see things very differently, the difference is that you are defending justy any arseholery as "journalism and hacktivism", while the GP wasn't. Funny how you seem to think that your view on everything, even on a difference in views, is automatically the authoritative one. I don't feel like interacting any more with you either, so why don't you think to yourself about it why what you think is "so obviously correct."
        stale2002 2y ago
        The problem with the initial response and why it was basically bad faith is that the definition of the word "whistleblower" can be broad, and it also is fairly unrelated to the central point. So when the other person brought that up, as well as when you are arguing about it, what you are doing is being both wrong on the point and pendant in a way that is irrelevant to the central thesis. Instead of trying to claim that someone was wrong about 1 single word, the good faith way of approaching the argument would be to talk about the thesis, which was that it wasn't really a "conspiracy" when the US government absolutely had strong motivation to go after him. The word "whistleblower" which has multiple meaning is basically irrelevant. And his original justification, of using a Google search definition, is absolutely valid. Or, it is at least valid enough that I don't think you are justified in being upset about a perfectly normal way of using a word. Especially when the use of the word, that is supported by Google, is irrelevant to the thesis statement.

by _djo_ 2y ago

soulofmischief 2y ago

A google search defines "whistleblower" as a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity. I fail to see the material difference. He was also a journalist.

_djo_ 2y ago
There's more to this than just googling for a basic definition. When he provided tools and direct guidance to Chelsea Manning to access classified information and when he and others breached the Congressional Research Service to leak documents from there he went far beyond what any professional journalist would do and lost the associated protections.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  Please don't patronize me just because you were wrong about the definition of whistleblower. > went far beyond what any professional journalist would do A useless statement without contextualization, but you can spare the contextualization because it's a moot point; Assange, running his own outfit, is free to decide for himself what kind of journalist he wishes to be. He doesn't have to follow CNN's playbook because he doesn't work for CNN. I'm not defending the lack of censorship which may have put lives at immediate risk, but that's also not the basis on which the US government has sought his extradition. The basis of their argument had to do with the act of allegedly providing Manning the means of acquiring the data. > lost the associated protections You're downplaying the significance of the Cablegate leaks. The US went to great lengths to prosecute and get revenge on everyone involved, including Manning. I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make here, as you're shifting goalposts.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    That’s an oddly hostile response. Just because you call yourself a journalist it doesn’t mean you’re free to do whatever you want and still claim journalism protections. It doesn’t matter where you are, journalism does not include hacking into or otherwise intentionally and actively stealing information. Doing that rightfully opens you up to criminal charges.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      Please don't mischaracterize my post, either. Just because I pushed back on your argument doesn't make my rebuttal hostile. > It doesn’t matter where you are, journalism does not include hacking into or otherwise intentionally and actively stealing information We see things very differently, the difference is that you are gatekeeping journalism and hacktivism, while I'm not. I don't feel like devolving into a meta-argument, so I'll leave you to think on it.
      - CRConrad 2y ago
        Or you see things very differently, the difference is that you are defending justy any arseholery as "journalism and hacktivism", while the GP wasn't. Funny how you seem to think that your view on everything, even on a difference in views, is automatically the authoritative one. I don't feel like interacting any more with you either, so why don't you think to yourself about it why what you think is "so obviously correct."
        stale2002 2y ago
        The problem with the initial response and why it was basically bad faith is that the definition of the word "whistleblower" can be broad, and it also is fairly unrelated to the central point. So when the other person brought that up, as well as when you are arguing about it, what you are doing is being both wrong on the point and pendant in a way that is irrelevant to the central thesis. Instead of trying to claim that someone was wrong about 1 single word, the good faith way of approaching the argument would be to talk about the thesis, which was that it wasn't really a "conspiracy" when the US government absolutely had strong motivation to go after him. The word "whistleblower" which has multiple meaning is basically irrelevant. And his original justification, of using a Google search definition, is absolutely valid. Or, it is at least valid enough that I don't think you are justified in being upset about a perfectly normal way of using a word. Especially when the use of the word, that is supported by Google, is irrelevant to the thesis statement.