10 ms·

'not a reason for independent businesses to start taking sides' That's the whole point, they did. 'it seems equally true that Wikileaks haven't really told us

'not a reason for independent businesses to start taking sides' That's the whole point, they did. 'it seems equally true that Wikileaks haven't really told us anything big we didn't already know, or at least suspect' I disagree on this and they aren't done yet. So you don't know what is next. Besides, why would you shut something down that isn't a real threat(yet)?

Silhouette 16y ago
Well, OK, Amazon removing themselves from the whole situation is passively taking the side of the governments, but it's rather different to actively hosting anti-Wikileaks propaganda or telling the CIA that they know where Julian Assange is this afternoon. As for the rest of it, we've been hearing that Wikileaks are not done yet for a long time. If they are genuinely interested in transparency rather than raising their profile and/or causing extended embarrassment to people they don't like, then why haven't they just published everything on their web site for all to see? Transparency theatre is becoming as tedious (and unconstructive) as security theatre, and it's time for Wikileaks to s@#t or get off the pot.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  I suspect this reaction is exactly why Wikileaks is metering out the information - each time they reveal some wrongdoing, it will be new wrongdoing and hence newsworthy, whereas each time people scream for Wikileaks's head it will be the same shrill cry. I think Wikileaks is hoping that over time, the repetitive anger at them becomes boring, whilst the corruption they uncover becomes the more interesting part of the story. I suspect they are deliberately releasing only mildly embarrassing information at first as a form of innoculation so that when they get to the really damaging stuff Wikileaks itself will be old news and people will focus on the more unpleasant truths.
  - Silhouette 16y ago
    > I think Wikileaks is hoping that over time, the repetitive anger at them becomes boring, whilst the corruption they uncover becomes the more interesting part of the story. I appreciate that you probably hadn't seen it when you wrote the parent post, but it appears that the big Wikileaks story for today is a list of facilities that are considered critical to US security. I'm not sure I see any corruption exposed, or any other public interest for that matter, in publishing such information openly. How can this possibly do anything except make it easier for the bad guys to cause significant damage? If they carry on in this direction, releasing ever more sensitive information that really might have national security implications, then I can only see any public support they have deteriorating and the arguments of governments that some information must be kept secret for national security reasons being strengthened. The end result will probably be a terrible disappointment for conspiracy theorists, reassurance to many people that most of our governments are not in fact secretly planning world domination and merely make mistakes from time to time, and a new era of locking down anything that might be considered even remotely sensitive within governments to the extent that we might even see changes in the laws that currently protect whistle-blowing that is genuinely in the public interest. It would be an ironic, and unwelcome, legacy for Wikileaks if its big campaign ultimately resulted in more people believing in arbitrary government secrecy and tighter controls on free speech just in case anyone else as irresponsible comes along in future.
    - rbarooah 16y ago
      Agreed. I personally think wikileaks only possible value is if it exposes actual corruption. Simply revealing sensitive information that weakens the US but doesn't reveal wrongdoing seems like a terrible mistake.

Silhouette 16y ago

Well, OK, Amazon removing themselves from the whole situation is passively taking the side of the governments, but it's rather different to actively hosting anti-Wikileaks propaganda or telling the CIA that they know where Julian Assange is this afternoon. As for the rest of it, we've been hearing that Wikileaks are not done yet for a long time. If they are genuinely interested in transparency rather than raising their profile and/or causing extended embarrassment to people they don't like, then why haven't they just published everything on their web site for all to see? Transparency theatre is becoming as tedious (and unconstructive) as security theatre, and it's time for Wikileaks to s@#t or get off the pot.

rbarooah 16y ago
I suspect this reaction is exactly why Wikileaks is metering out the information - each time they reveal some wrongdoing, it will be new wrongdoing and hence newsworthy, whereas each time people scream for Wikileaks's head it will be the same shrill cry. I think Wikileaks is hoping that over time, the repetitive anger at them becomes boring, whilst the corruption they uncover becomes the more interesting part of the story. I suspect they are deliberately releasing only mildly embarrassing information at first as a form of innoculation so that when they get to the really damaging stuff Wikileaks itself will be old news and people will focus on the more unpleasant truths.
- Silhouette 16y ago
  > I think Wikileaks is hoping that over time, the repetitive anger at them becomes boring, whilst the corruption they uncover becomes the more interesting part of the story. I appreciate that you probably hadn't seen it when you wrote the parent post, but it appears that the big Wikileaks story for today is a list of facilities that are considered critical to US security. I'm not sure I see any corruption exposed, or any other public interest for that matter, in publishing such information openly. How can this possibly do anything except make it easier for the bad guys to cause significant damage? If they carry on in this direction, releasing ever more sensitive information that really might have national security implications, then I can only see any public support they have deteriorating and the arguments of governments that some information must be kept secret for national security reasons being strengthened. The end result will probably be a terrible disappointment for conspiracy theorists, reassurance to many people that most of our governments are not in fact secretly planning world domination and merely make mistakes from time to time, and a new era of locking down anything that might be considered even remotely sensitive within governments to the extent that we might even see changes in the laws that currently protect whistle-blowing that is genuinely in the public interest. It would be an ironic, and unwelcome, legacy for Wikileaks if its big campaign ultimately resulted in more people believing in arbitrary government secrecy and tighter controls on free speech just in case anyone else as irresponsible comes along in future.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    Agreed. I personally think wikileaks only possible value is if it exposes actual corruption. Simply revealing sensitive information that weakens the US but doesn't reveal wrongdoing seems like a terrible mistake.