7 ms·

I think this is a wrong question. The premise is that by picking and choosing which stories to cover you can make the world better for your world view. From thi

by dlss 14y ago

I think this is a wrong question. The premise is that by picking and choosing which stories to cover you can make the world better for your world view. From this sort of logic you can make the case that Google shouldn't support all possible queries -- what if some of the people using Google use the results to cause harm? This is a wrong way of looking at things because although some of the help Google provides people will cause the world to be a worse place, the vast majority of its effects are positive... for every person who looks up movie showtimes so they can go shoot people hundreds of millions of people are using google to have a fun family afternoon. Just because a tool can be used poorly doesn't mean it is wrong that it exists. WikiLeaks is a tool for whistle blowers. It's a tool for people with access to information they feel a moral obligation to share with the world. It's designed to let them do that without throwing their life away in the process. Some of these whistle blowers will be doing things you or I disagree with, some will be doing things we do agree with. That, in balance, this is a good tool to have exist seems straightforward to me. As for conflict vs non-conflict, I think that conflict often is the first step toward long term improvement. If your government has been lying to you about why it's doing what it's doing, telling everyone the truth is virtually guaranteed to create conflict. Conflict of this sort is good. Look at the huge escalation of conflict in the middle east brought about by the cable leaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring is the least biased link I can find, and a reasonable place to start). I completely agree that there are a lot of bad outcomes from these conflicts so far (60,000 deaths in the Syrian civil war, etc)... I'm just optimistic that we'll get some real governmental reforms in the long run (either from successful revolutions, or from other dictators being wary of betraying their people).

mikevm 14y ago
I'm not sure whether the analogy to Google applies here, as leaks are private information, not to be shared with third parties and Google search queries merely search what is already published. I was alluding to Bill Maher's example of the Cold War stand-off between the US and Russia. I thought it was a proper example where leaking something out could've caused WW3. But you are right in a sense that this is a hypothetical and we're not really sure how things would really turn out. Btw, here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954 http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954
- betterunix 14y ago
  "here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't:" We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. If that is really the worst leak you can find, I think we are pretty safe in a world with Wikileaks.
  - gaius 14y ago
    We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. Hate to break it to you, but technology isn't everything. Just ask the Taliban.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      First of all, the leak I was talking about was about technology, supposedly robbing Israel and the US of a particular technical advantage over the Iranian military. If technology is not everything, then the importance of that leak was greatly overstated; if technology matters, the importance of the leak is still greatly overstated. That being said, while it is true that coordination, tactics, and strategy can outweigh technical advantages, better technology confers a tactical advantage to an army. The greater the difference in two armies technologies, the more pronounced the tactical advantage is. The Taliban did not see anything resembling a victory when the US attacked Afghanistan; they survive now by hiding in caves, and their overall strategy is based on intimidating civilians. If you want to point to a case where superior technology did not result in victory, you should have pointed to Nazi Germany. There can be little question that the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine had better technology than the Allies, but ultimately Germany lost. I do not think Iran is really in the same position as the Allies were in...
philwelch 14y ago
> The premise is that by picking and choosing which stories to cover you can make the world better for your world view. Wikileaks seems to operate on this premise already. They aren't a wiki anymore, they're selective about what they publish, and what they do publish is usually editorialized. The real question is whether Wikileaks' agenda is positive or negative.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  Did you really just state, as an adult, that the "real question" is whether Wikileaks is "the good guys or the bad guys"?
  - philwelch 14y ago
    I think if you're selectively leaking and editorializing things, it makes sense to question whether your agenda is good or bad.
    - freshhawk 14y ago
      And I was trying to point out that the idea of agenda's being entirely "good" or "bad" is childish.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        Well if you're going to play the moral relativism game, I guess none of this shit matters anyway.
        freshhawk 14y ago
        So it's either "the good folk vs the evildoers" or complete moral relativism? No concept of an interplay between transparency/civil rights and security? No room for disagreement between people who value both but disagree about the relative worth of these goals when applied to a specific circumstance? As I said before: childish.

by dlss 14y ago

mikevm 14y ago

I'm not sure whether the analogy to Google applies here, as leaks are private information, not to be shared with third parties and Google search queries merely search what is already published. I was alluding to Bill Maher's example of the Cold War stand-off between the US and Russia. I thought it was a proper example where leaking something out could've caused WW3. But you are right in a sense that this is a hypothetical and we're not really sure how things would really turn out. Btw, here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954 http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954

betterunix 14y ago
"here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't:" We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. If that is really the worst leak you can find, I think we are pretty safe in a world with Wikileaks.
- gaius 14y ago
  We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. Hate to break it to you, but technology isn't everything. Just ask the Taliban.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    First of all, the leak I was talking about was about technology, supposedly robbing Israel and the US of a particular technical advantage over the Iranian military. If technology is not everything, then the importance of that leak was greatly overstated; if technology matters, the importance of the leak is still greatly overstated. That being said, while it is true that coordination, tactics, and strategy can outweigh technical advantages, better technology confers a tactical advantage to an army. The greater the difference in two armies technologies, the more pronounced the tactical advantage is. The Taliban did not see anything resembling a victory when the US attacked Afghanistan; they survive now by hiding in caves, and their overall strategy is based on intimidating civilians. If you want to point to a case where superior technology did not result in victory, you should have pointed to Nazi Germany. There can be little question that the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine had better technology than the Allies, but ultimately Germany lost. I do not think Iran is really in the same position as the Allies were in...

philwelch 14y ago

> The premise is that by picking and choosing which stories to cover you can make the world better for your world view. Wikileaks seems to operate on this premise already. They aren't a wiki anymore, they're selective about what they publish, and what they do publish is usually editorialized. The real question is whether Wikileaks' agenda is positive or negative.

freshhawk 14y ago
Did you really just state, as an adult, that the "real question" is whether Wikileaks is "the good guys or the bad guys"?
- philwelch 14y ago
  I think if you're selectively leaking and editorializing things, it makes sense to question whether your agenda is good or bad.
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    And I was trying to point out that the idea of agenda's being entirely "good" or "bad" is childish.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Well if you're going to play the moral relativism game, I guess none of this shit matters anyway.
      - freshhawk 14y ago
        So it's either "the good folk vs the evildoers" or complete moral relativism? No concept of an interplay between transparency/civil rights and security? No room for disagreement between people who value both but disagree about the relative worth of these goals when applied to a specific circumstance? As I said before: childish.