3 ms·

> It also changes WikiLeaks from observer and passive receiver of information to actor, instigator. I think WikiLeaks has only ever seemed passive and neutral

> It also changes WikiLeaks from observer and passive receiver of information to actor, instigator. I think WikiLeaks has only ever seemed passive and neutral to people who agree with its agenda

JupiterMoon 11y ago
> I think WikiLeaks has only ever seemed passive and neutral to people who agree with its agenda No the idea has previously been that any information gets dumped onto wikileaks rather than wikileaks seeking specific pieces of information. This makes them passive. You can dislike the idea of information being dumped and this would make you disagree with its agenda but it does not mean that wikileaks has (previously) been active rather than passive.
- jberryman 11y ago
  > No the idea has previously been that any information gets dumped onto wikileaks rather than wikileaks seeking specific pieces of information. I'm not sure the distinction between "dumped onto" vs "seeking out" is a real one, but my main objection is that I don't see any evidence that wikileaks has been a passive conduit for leaks that come their way; they do curation of "leaks" that arrive in their inbox, they choose to promote certain leaks in certain ways, etc.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    > I'm not sure the distinction between "dumped onto" vs "seeking out" is a real one It is huge. It is also recognised as such by laws in many countries. E.g. UK libel act 2013 and US DMCA act (safe harbour provisions). In both cases publishers are protected from legal trouble if they act as an intermediary rather than as a publisher. > but my main objection is that I don't see any evidence that wikileaks has been a passive conduit for leaks that come their way; they do curation of "leaks" that arrive in their inbox, they choose to promote certain leaks in certain ways, etc. This is a valid point. But offering money for leaks is a whole different thing.

> It also changes WikiLeaks from observer and passive receiver of information to actor, instigator. I think WikiLeaks has only ever seemed passive and neutral to people who agree with its agenda

JupiterMoon 11y ago

> I think WikiLeaks has only ever seemed passive and neutral to people who agree with its agenda No the idea has previously been that any information gets dumped onto wikileaks rather than wikileaks seeking specific pieces of information. This makes them passive. You can dislike the idea of information being dumped and this would make you disagree with its agenda but it does not mean that wikileaks has (previously) been active rather than passive.

jberryman 11y ago
> No the idea has previously been that any information gets dumped onto wikileaks rather than wikileaks seeking specific pieces of information. I'm not sure the distinction between "dumped onto" vs "seeking out" is a real one, but my main objection is that I don't see any evidence that wikileaks has been a passive conduit for leaks that come their way; they do curation of "leaks" that arrive in their inbox, they choose to promote certain leaks in certain ways, etc.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  > I'm not sure the distinction between "dumped onto" vs "seeking out" is a real one It is huge. It is also recognised as such by laws in many countries. E.g. UK libel act 2013 and US DMCA act (safe harbour provisions). In both cases publishers are protected from legal trouble if they act as an intermediary rather than as a publisher. > but my main objection is that I don't see any evidence that wikileaks has been a passive conduit for leaks that come their way; they do curation of "leaks" that arrive in their inbox, they choose to promote certain leaks in certain ways, etc. This is a valid point. But offering money for leaks is a whole different thing.