2 ms·

I think Snowden is a hero who deserves a medal from the president. I think Assange deserves what he got. The differences in what they did and how make the dis

I think Snowden is a hero who deserves a medal from the president. I think Assange deserves what he got. The differences in what they did and how make the distinction. Snowden saw something the public needed to know and filtered it through a journalist who did everything reasonable to filter and publish what the public needed to know. And the public really did need to know it. Assange tried to find anything and everything to publish in bulk and did so with no regards to the content or the need for anybody to know. He actually put things in danger and the things he leaked were of limited value and often hyped up to be much more than they were. If you're an edgy teenager with a "fuck the system" mentality sure you'll appreciate Assange, but I'm not. That's not dystopia.

mrcsharp 2y ago
Information (and truth) need no filtering. Such "filtering", in my opinion, is equal to tempering and it taints the truth.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  Ok, why don't you publish the contents of all of your text messages, emails, and recordings of all the phone calls you've ever made and put a video camera in your bedroom streaming 24/7?
  - jjkaczor 2y ago
    Because they (or myself - or yourself) are not empowered to systematically commit crimes by their/our citizens - who pay for the privilege of that through taxation. So - you are saying that governments should not be accountable and transparent in their operations? Transparency within the limits of safety (intelligence gathering/criminal investigation (while it is underway - once it hits the courts and convictions are made, should be transparent) - yet - what happens when those who have the power are abusing it and committing criminal acts? Yeah - give me the leakers, give me the dissidents - because you end-up with an out-of-control fascist police-state otherwise.
    - colechristensen 2y ago
      >what happens when those who have the power are abusing it and committing criminal acts? I never saw anything on Wikileaks I thought needed to be leaked. >Because they (or myself - or yourself) are not empowered to systematically commit crimes by their/our citizens - who pay for the privilege of that through taxation. You have power over, say, your children, spouse, parents, maybe you manage folks? Do they have a right to dump all your information to each other? >Yeah - give me the leakers, give me the dissidents - because you end-up with an out-of-control fascist police-state otherwise. This is exactly the kind of teenage rebel logic I'm talking about. Snowden exposed an actual significant abuse of power issue. Assange didn't, as far as I know with the things I've seen and remember. People who want to blindly rebel but have nothing but vague charges and cannot point to real issues supporting anything anti-government. Adults need to focus on understanding the real problems of government and providing real feedback on logically sound arguments. Not ambiguous "down with the man" rhetoric. You live in a world that needs government to function and governments need to keep secrets.
      - pydry 2y ago
        >I never saw anything on Wikileaks I thought needed to be leaked. This is essentially a pro war crime position.
  - mrcsharp 2y ago
    Because my text messages asking my girlfriend to pick up some food on her way back is of no interest to the public. If, however, I am suspected of committing a crime, the police expects the whole untempered truth and anything else can be considered as obstruction of justice. If I can be held to this standard, so does our public servants in the government. The government, however, has the power to hide stuff from the public. Leakers and whistleblowers are the only thing that can hold them accountable.
me_me_me 2y ago
huh? Wikileaks used all reputable journals/newspapers to vet and publish doc that would ensure no soldiers or civiliands will be hurt by the disclousre. How is that "fuck the system" ? How is trying to uncover warcrimes a bad thing?
kleiba 2y ago
Yeah, I also agree that the public really doesn't need to know everything their leaders are up to. It's much better for us if we only receive pre-filtered information. Perhaps journalists are not the best choice, though, don't you think? In a democracy I'd say the most trustworthy people we have to be tasked with filtering our information are our freely elected politicians!

mrcsharp 2y ago

Information (and truth) need no filtering. Such "filtering", in my opinion, is equal to tempering and it taints the truth.

colechristensen 2y ago
Ok, why don't you publish the contents of all of your text messages, emails, and recordings of all the phone calls you've ever made and put a video camera in your bedroom streaming 24/7?
- jjkaczor 2y ago
  Because they (or myself - or yourself) are not empowered to systematically commit crimes by their/our citizens - who pay for the privilege of that through taxation. So - you are saying that governments should not be accountable and transparent in their operations? Transparency within the limits of safety (intelligence gathering/criminal investigation (while it is underway - once it hits the courts and convictions are made, should be transparent) - yet - what happens when those who have the power are abusing it and committing criminal acts? Yeah - give me the leakers, give me the dissidents - because you end-up with an out-of-control fascist police-state otherwise.
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    >what happens when those who have the power are abusing it and committing criminal acts? I never saw anything on Wikileaks I thought needed to be leaked. >Because they (or myself - or yourself) are not empowered to systematically commit crimes by their/our citizens - who pay for the privilege of that through taxation. You have power over, say, your children, spouse, parents, maybe you manage folks? Do they have a right to dump all your information to each other? >Yeah - give me the leakers, give me the dissidents - because you end-up with an out-of-control fascist police-state otherwise. This is exactly the kind of teenage rebel logic I'm talking about. Snowden exposed an actual significant abuse of power issue. Assange didn't, as far as I know with the things I've seen and remember. People who want to blindly rebel but have nothing but vague charges and cannot point to real issues supporting anything anti-government. Adults need to focus on understanding the real problems of government and providing real feedback on logically sound arguments. Not ambiguous "down with the man" rhetoric. You live in a world that needs government to function and governments need to keep secrets.
    - pydry 2y ago
      >I never saw anything on Wikileaks I thought needed to be leaked. This is essentially a pro war crime position.
- mrcsharp 2y ago
  Because my text messages asking my girlfriend to pick up some food on her way back is of no interest to the public. If, however, I am suspected of committing a crime, the police expects the whole untempered truth and anything else can be considered as obstruction of justice. If I can be held to this standard, so does our public servants in the government. The government, however, has the power to hide stuff from the public. Leakers and whistleblowers are the only thing that can hold them accountable.

me_me_me 2y ago

huh? Wikileaks used all reputable journals/newspapers to vet and publish doc that would ensure no soldiers or civiliands will be hurt by the disclousre. How is that "fuck the system" ? How is trying to uncover warcrimes a bad thing?

kleiba 2y ago

Yeah, I also agree that the public really doesn't need to know everything their leaders are up to. It's much better for us if we only receive pre-filtered information. Perhaps journalists are not the best choice, though, don't you think? In a democracy I'd say the most trustworthy people we have to be tasked with filtering our information are our freely elected politicians!