Answer: they don't leak classified info, they leak restricted info that's effectively public domain. Because both sound bad, there's benefits to all involved t

Answer: they don't leak classified info, they leak restricted info that's effectively public domain. Because both sound bad, there's benefits to all involved to do a little bait and switch there. Notably, reputable publications don't play along. This sounds disagreeable, but it's the boring truth. Some sourcing: - "declassified information can still be considered “restricted,” and thus violates the game’s rules, [the game developer] said. In fact, the restricted manuals are available for purchase on legitimate websites." [via Task and Purpose: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-military-sensitive-info-war-thunder-leak/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-military-sensitive-info-w...] [via Task and Purpose in another PR round: https://taskandpurpose.com/culture/war-thunder-challenger-2-classified-specs/ https://taskandpurpose.com/culture/war-thunder-challenger-2-...] The UK Defence Journal is the worst offender, they're not reputable, but rather a bog-standard republisher that reliably finds a way to publish a headline on this every 6 months. They cleverly don't assert anything themselves, but rather quote comments that are confused about classification. (i.e. compare to 2nd Task and Purpose link. same incident: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/classified-tank-specs-leaked-on-war-thunder-game-forums-again/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/classified-tank-specs-leaked...) They've also started using AI to write it up for them. c.f. comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42490191 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42490191, the latest round of virality