8 ms·

This goes to some lengths to explain why Assange is willing to publish anything, no matter how damaging in the short term it may be to particular interests. He

This goes to some lengths to explain why Assange is willing to publish anything, no matter how damaging in the short term it may be to particular interests. He doesn't want to be a curator or a decision maker about what information is or is not available. He is interested in solving the architectural problem of removing the ability to having political interests or personal bias influence control what gets published. From his perspective, he is merely a cog in that system he's trying to create - an automaton who doesn't get to make decisions about the content of diplomatic cables, etc. In this sense it's probably better to think of Assange as an engineer as opposed to a journalist, dissident or politician. It's just that this system he's been trying to create crosses those circles - when the system effects knowledge/power relations and to the degree his system is successful what's left to do is to effect Wikileaks. Another note: I am in agreement with and happy that Assange recognizes that Wikileaks in a young and incomplete prototype. There are tons of operational questions left: Who gets Wikileaks when Assange passes away? How do you vet a new member? How do you prevent bribery? Isn't it a problem that there is any centralized control of Wikileaks to begin with? Countries have been successful in preventing journalists from partnering with Wikileaks - how does one secure that pipeline?

steve19 12y ago
Nonsense. Assange goes to great lengths to spin his political agenda. For example the "Collateral Murder" video. He did not publish raw source material, he published his narrative: http://www.collateralmurder.com/ http://www.collateralmurder.com/ He is no Snowden. Snowden was upfront and honest from the start about what he was trying to achieve. I used to admire Assange, now Assange is caught up in his own myth and he seems desperate to keep that myth alive. The world needs a WikiLeaks 3.0, one that looks like the original 1.0 (the actual wiki before the cable leaks). For those of you that forgot what it was originally: https://web.archive.org/web/20080102184708/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks https://web.archive.org/web/20080102184708/http://www.wikile...
- corin_ 12y ago
  Pretty much agree - I never agreed with everything Assange was doing, but I at least thought he was doing it for the right reasons and respected him for that, but as time goes on he just seems more deluded and often self-interested. I suppose in his defense it can't be easy being stuck in an embassy for two and a half years.
  - alex_hitchins 12y ago
    Regards to him hiding out in the embassy, it really irritates me when he refers to this as 'house arrest' or 'detained without charge'. He is there of his own free will. He can leave at any time. He chooses not to as he is a coward.
    - Pyxl101 12y ago
      If he attempts to leave his domicile, won't he immediately be arrested? That is the impression I was under. It's the same scenario as someone under house arrest. When you're under house arrest, typically there is not an armed guard preventing you from leaving (although this is sometimes required by a court). Rather, you have the ability to leave your house, but if you do, then you will be arrested. I can see why he would consider the situation equivalent to house arrest. [Edit: moving my other comments about the Assange case to a separate reply]
      - Pyxl101 12y ago
        I am not sure how I feel about Assange hiding in the embassy. I've read about the circumstances leading up to his extradition request, and I can understand why he would believe that the prosecution is at least in part politically motivated. Please review the evidence below before you make up your mind. Timeline of the scenario: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 An arrest warrant was issued on August 20, 2010. The next day, Stockholm chief prosecutor Eva Finne reviewed the charges and canceled them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 > Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne dismissed the 'rape' investigation altogether: “I have discontinued the preliminary investigation of the charge (sic) originally designated as rape. There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.” https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#efmNOcOWN https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.h... Assange is interviewed by police, released, and allow to leave the country. After he's left the country, on September 1, the decision was overridden by the Swedish Director of Prosecution, who reopens the case against him. > The woman of whom Mr. Assange is accused of the offence of "lesser rape" (a technical term in Swedish law) sent an SMS to a friend saying that she "did not want to accuse JA [of] anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". The other woman tweeted in 2013 that she had never been raped. Both women’s testimonies say that they consented to the sex. [S]enior prosecutor [Finne] already dismissed the ’rape’ accusation, saying that there were no grounds for accusing Mr. Assange on this basis. But a third prosecutor, lobbied by a politician who was running for attorney general, took over the investigation and resurrected the accusations against Mr. Assange. https://justice4assange.com/ https://justice4assange.com/ [note that this is not a credible news site, but it links to further sources and legal documents such as https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#efmNOcOWN https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.h... ] That politician is Claes Borgström, a also a lawyer. He allegedly applied pressure to reopen the case and become the women's lawyer, and was interested only in media spotlight: > One of two women who accused Julian Assange of sex crimes moved to fire her controversial lawyer Claes Borgstrom late last month after she lost faith in his ability to represent her. [She] charged that Borgstrom was more interested in being in the media spotlight than providing her legal counsel, and has often referred her inquiries to his secretary or assistant. http://rt.com/news/assange-prosecutor-judge-speech-992/ http://rt.com/news/assange-prosecutor-judge-speech-992/ There seem to be a number of unusual or suspicious aspects to the overall case, that give me the impression that its motivations include something beyond the pursuit of justice.
- finid 12y ago
  Please don't forget that regardless of what you think his agenda is, Assange was/is doing what the MSM is failing to do.
- cyphunk 12y ago
  If you imagine a world where non-nationalist universal civil liberties is a reality you may find Assange's political agenda makes sense. While Snowden and others came to the idea of universal civil liberties only after being buffed for questioning the debasement of US civil liberties Assange started from this principle from the outset. 100 years from now I'm pretty confident that people will consider our debate of Assange and find little merit in pegging his actions to a purely personal ego motivation. But this is just my opinion and I understand how differentiating the personal motives of Assange from the broader motives, with many placing heavier weight on the former, is possible. I think his mind lives in a better world and he just doesn't have the patience to wait for it. And you may be right about Assange defending a myth. Then again, myth and vision can often be impossible to distinguish. On another note: famous people just got a different set of problems.
- caractacus 12y ago
  There's a wonderful article[1] in London Review of Books in which Andrew O'Hagan, hired to be Assange's ghost writer, gradually becomes convinced - from a position of admiration - that Assange is a confused and vainglorious narcissist who has little interest in spreading information and far more in spreading the cult of Assange. It's long but utterly engrossing. [1] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting
  - woah 12y ago
    Frankly, I'm willing to enable the cult of Assange if it furthers the free spread of information. He's clearly a megalomaniac, but he provides a very useful bulls-eye for those governments wishing to oppress the free flow of information. While he is serving as the sacrificial pig of Wikileaks, the information is getting out and it's being publicized. Snowden did it without WL, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect all leakers to become info-martyrs like him.
  - Gatsky 12y ago
    Fantastic and engaging read! Such a rare insight to have into a public figure.
- e12e 12y ago
  > The world needs a WikiLeaks 3.0, one that looks like the original 1.0 (the actual wiki before the cable leaks). Sounds a lot like cryptome? I recall reading a rather level-headed argument from Young (of cryptome) about not joining (or was it leaving) wikileaks -- over among other things the need (or rather lack there of) for the massive donation drives/big budgets of wikileaks. While Yong might not be entirely neutral wrt wikileaks -- all I've read by him on the matter have been rather straight forward and on point. I can't find the exact kibk, but it may have been the pdf-document on "wikileaks finances" -- or (more kikely) an email thread that was intended to set up an interview with comments from Yong on wikileaks - but somewhat amusingly failed to what I can only describe as culture shock/mismatch between the interviewer and the subject: http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-views.htm http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-views.htm
  - xorcist 12y ago
    Assange also reasoned very publicly about the necessity of Wikileaks, and why Cryptome couldn't make a difference. He noticed that no matter what bombshells were published in Cryptome and similar sites, media did not write about it, there were no scandals and people in general didn't care. If you could work in tight cooperation with established media, do all the data processing for them (which hackers have a talent for) and serve them stories ready made for journalistic work and subsequent publication, a much bigger impact would be seen. In retrospect he clearly did get that right.
- _nedR 12y ago
  >> He did not publish raw source material, he published his narrative: He published both. Full Unedited Footage : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Pk53Xjvtc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Pk53Xjvtc Shortened version : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
- xorcist 12y ago
  > He did not publish raw source material, This is completely false.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
sien 12y ago
Assange is explicitly and deliberately a politician. He stood as a candidate for the Australian Senate and used the brand 'wikileaks' for his party. http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/ http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/ They performed very poorly, getting only 0.62% of the vote. Assange was popular as someone who enabled information to be available. As a politician with his own agenda he is not.
- danieltillett 12y ago
  Actually 0.62% is not too bad for a candidate that got very little coverage. If he is a politician then he is not a very good one as the person who won the last senate seat Ricky Muir (we have 12 senators for each state) in Victoria (the state Assange was running in) only got 0.51% [1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Muir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Muir

steve19 12y ago

Nonsense. Assange goes to great lengths to spin his political agenda. For example the "Collateral Murder" video. He did not publish raw source material, he published his narrative: http://www.collateralmurder.com/ http://www.collateralmurder.com/ He is no Snowden. Snowden was upfront and honest from the start about what he was trying to achieve. I used to admire Assange, now Assange is caught up in his own myth and he seems desperate to keep that myth alive. The world needs a WikiLeaks 3.0, one that looks like the original 1.0 (the actual wiki before the cable leaks). For those of you that forgot what it was originally: https://web.archive.org/web/20080102184708/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks https://web.archive.org/web/20080102184708/http://www.wikile...

corin_ 12y ago
Pretty much agree - I never agreed with everything Assange was doing, but I at least thought he was doing it for the right reasons and respected him for that, but as time goes on he just seems more deluded and often self-interested. I suppose in his defense it can't be easy being stuck in an embassy for two and a half years.
- alex_hitchins 12y ago
  Regards to him hiding out in the embassy, it really irritates me when he refers to this as 'house arrest' or 'detained without charge'. He is there of his own free will. He can leave at any time. He chooses not to as he is a coward.
  - Pyxl101 12y ago
    If he attempts to leave his domicile, won't he immediately be arrested? That is the impression I was under. It's the same scenario as someone under house arrest. When you're under house arrest, typically there is not an armed guard preventing you from leaving (although this is sometimes required by a court). Rather, you have the ability to leave your house, but if you do, then you will be arrested. I can see why he would consider the situation equivalent to house arrest. [Edit: moving my other comments about the Assange case to a separate reply]
    - Pyxl101 12y ago
      I am not sure how I feel about Assange hiding in the embassy. I've read about the circumstances leading up to his extradition request, and I can understand why he would believe that the prosecution is at least in part politically motivated. Please review the evidence below before you make up your mind. Timeline of the scenario: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 An arrest warrant was issued on August 20, 2010. The next day, Stockholm chief prosecutor Eva Finne reviewed the charges and canceled them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 > Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne dismissed the 'rape' investigation altogether: “I have discontinued the preliminary investigation of the charge (sic) originally designated as rape. There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.” https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#efmNOcOWN https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.h... Assange is interviewed by police, released, and allow to leave the country. After he's left the country, on September 1, the decision was overridden by the Swedish Director of Prosecution, who reopens the case against him. > The woman of whom Mr. Assange is accused of the offence of "lesser rape" (a technical term in Swedish law) sent an SMS to a friend saying that she "did not want to accuse JA [of] anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". The other woman tweeted in 2013 that she had never been raped. Both women’s testimonies say that they consented to the sex. [S]enior prosecutor [Finne] already dismissed the ’rape’ accusation, saying that there were no grounds for accusing Mr. Assange on this basis. But a third prosecutor, lobbied by a politician who was running for attorney general, took over the investigation and resurrected the accusations against Mr. Assange. https://justice4assange.com/ https://justice4assange.com/ [note that this is not a credible news site, but it links to further sources and legal documents such as https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#efmNOcOWN https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.h... ] That politician is Claes Borgström, a also a lawyer. He allegedly applied pressure to reopen the case and become the women's lawyer, and was interested only in media spotlight: > One of two women who accused Julian Assange of sex crimes moved to fire her controversial lawyer Claes Borgstrom late last month after she lost faith in his ability to represent her. [She] charged that Borgstrom was more interested in being in the media spotlight than providing her legal counsel, and has often referred her inquiries to his secretary or assistant. http://rt.com/news/assange-prosecutor-judge-speech-992/ http://rt.com/news/assange-prosecutor-judge-speech-992/ There seem to be a number of unusual or suspicious aspects to the overall case, that give me the impression that its motivations include something beyond the pursuit of justice.
finid 12y ago
Please don't forget that regardless of what you think his agenda is, Assange was/is doing what the MSM is failing to do.
cyphunk 12y ago
If you imagine a world where non-nationalist universal civil liberties is a reality you may find Assange's political agenda makes sense. While Snowden and others came to the idea of universal civil liberties only after being buffed for questioning the debasement of US civil liberties Assange started from this principle from the outset. 100 years from now I'm pretty confident that people will consider our debate of Assange and find little merit in pegging his actions to a purely personal ego motivation. But this is just my opinion and I understand how differentiating the personal motives of Assange from the broader motives, with many placing heavier weight on the former, is possible. I think his mind lives in a better world and he just doesn't have the patience to wait for it. And you may be right about Assange defending a myth. Then again, myth and vision can often be impossible to distinguish. On another note: famous people just got a different set of problems.
caractacus 12y ago
There's a wonderful article[1] in London Review of Books in which Andrew O'Hagan, hired to be Assange's ghost writer, gradually becomes convinced - from a position of admiration - that Assange is a confused and vainglorious narcissist who has little interest in spreading information and far more in spreading the cult of Assange. It's long but utterly engrossing. [1] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting
- woah 12y ago
  Frankly, I'm willing to enable the cult of Assange if it furthers the free spread of information. He's clearly a megalomaniac, but he provides a very useful bulls-eye for those governments wishing to oppress the free flow of information. While he is serving as the sacrificial pig of Wikileaks, the information is getting out and it's being publicized. Snowden did it without WL, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect all leakers to become info-martyrs like him.
- Gatsky 12y ago
  Fantastic and engaging read! Such a rare insight to have into a public figure.
e12e 12y ago
> The world needs a WikiLeaks 3.0, one that looks like the original 1.0 (the actual wiki before the cable leaks). Sounds a lot like cryptome? I recall reading a rather level-headed argument from Young (of cryptome) about not joining (or was it leaving) wikileaks -- over among other things the need (or rather lack there of) for the massive donation drives/big budgets of wikileaks. While Yong might not be entirely neutral wrt wikileaks -- all I've read by him on the matter have been rather straight forward and on point. I can't find the exact kibk, but it may have been the pdf-document on "wikileaks finances" -- or (more kikely) an email thread that was intended to set up an interview with comments from Yong on wikileaks - but somewhat amusingly failed to what I can only describe as culture shock/mismatch between the interviewer and the subject: http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-views.htm http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-views.htm
- xorcist 12y ago
  Assange also reasoned very publicly about the necessity of Wikileaks, and why Cryptome couldn't make a difference. He noticed that no matter what bombshells were published in Cryptome and similar sites, media did not write about it, there were no scandals and people in general didn't care. If you could work in tight cooperation with established media, do all the data processing for them (which hackers have a talent for) and serve them stories ready made for journalistic work and subsequent publication, a much bigger impact would be seen. In retrospect he clearly did get that right.
_nedR 12y ago
>> He did not publish raw source material, he published his narrative: He published both. Full Unedited Footage : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Pk53Xjvtc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Pk53Xjvtc Shortened version : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
xorcist 12y ago
> He did not publish raw source material, This is completely false.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

sien 12y ago

Assange is explicitly and deliberately a politician. He stood as a candidate for the Australian Senate and used the brand 'wikileaks' for his party. http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/ http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/ They performed very poorly, getting only 0.62% of the vote. Assange was popular as someone who enabled information to be available. As a politician with his own agenda he is not.

danieltillett 12y ago
Actually 0.62% is not too bad for a candidate that got very little coverage. If he is a politician then he is not a very good one as the person who won the last senate seat Ricky Muir (we have 12 senators for each state) in Victoria (the state Assange was running in) only got 0.51% [1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Muir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Muir