8 ms·

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuin

by 206lol 4y ago

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuinely ok for someone to draw the conclusion that, "given the criticism, I cannot support them". Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".

naasking 4y ago
> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things What evil things, specifically?
- zzzeek 4y ago
  He preferred the election of Donald Trump and worked to make that happen. His preferences in specific political outcomes are well known: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks... So yes, that would be why $politicalside doesn't like him, because he aligned with a very specific, pro-fascist $politicalside (whether or not he is actually a fascist). downmod away folks but that's why $politicalside doesnt like Assange. He is extremely biased which makes the "journalist" angle look pretty weak. there's your answer
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    Having a preference you don't like is pretty different from "doing evil". I mean, I don't like that preference either, but the documents leaked were real, and I haven't heard that Wikileaks/Assange had equivalent dirt on Trump they could have leaked and didn't.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Even if he did have dirt on Trump and didn't publish it, I'm not sure why that's evil. Discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop was held back before the last election and most journalists still think that was perfectly justified. Either both are evil, or neither are, we should not apply double standards.
    - zzzeek 4y ago
      well a lot of us think Trump was pretty much the definition of evil, i mean, extorted an entire country with the threat of illegally withholding US military aid unless they made up political campaign propaganda for him, sometimes you have to just draw a line, like when it's blindingly obvious Assange preferred helping to install a corrupt grifter to run the US government into the dirt. He hates the US government. A lot of us USians think "try to wreck the US government by installing a mobster as president" is evil.
      - naasking 4y ago
        Responses like this are just so bizarre to me. Do you think other Presidents didn't extort other countries for various concessions, even selfish ones that help their political ambitions? Do you think other Presidents were not grifters? Perhaps you should look into Obama's and the Clinton's net worth before and after their presidency. What really broke people's brains about Trump is that he was openly rude and obnoxious and unapologetic about it, and so didn't hide the self-serving behind a polite facade that preserved the collective fiction that politicians were looking out for the people and not themselves. That's what people both love and hate about him.
        zzzeek 4y ago
        > Do you think other Presidents didn't extort other countries for various concessions, even selfish ones that help their political ambitions? illegally withheld US military aid unless the country fabricated a story to help the candidate's campaign? No Democratic president in modern times has done such a thing. Obama had a fully Republican congress for 6 years and they would have impeached him for such a thing. But that didn't happen. Nor for Clinton, who was of course impeached, but not for extorting another country; just for lying about sexual favors. that's the best they could come up with. If either president had some something 1% as evil as what Trump did in just that one incident, we of *course* would have been hearing about it for years.
        voltaireodactyl 3y ago
        Reagan had Contra, so there’s definitely precedent. I am reluctant to file it under “normal business” though.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Clinton expressed a thinly disguised desire to see him assassinated. Of course he preferred $not Clinton. Any journalist in the same position would.
- monetus 4y ago
  “Rep. Dana Rohrabacher told Assange “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr. Assange ... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks,” The Daily Beast reported. He got stiffed in that respect, but he did achieve his specific goal of tanking Clinton's campaign. Old interview of him talking about it: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/25/exclusive_wikileaks_julian_assange_on_releasing https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/25/exclusive_wikileaks_j...
  - naasking 4y ago
    I'm aware, I'm just curious what the OP specifically finds "evil" in these or other actions. Most journalists preferred Hillary, Assange likely did not, and his journalism hindered her campaign. OK, where is the "evil" specifically?
    - monetus 4y ago
      I can't speak for op and evil is subjective - If I have to take a stab at their thoughts, it would be along the lines that he was being a useful idiot for an entity whose goal was to harm a society. You can debate those points; what questions he should have asked, if what the Mueller report says about his sources is true, if he had any actual malice - evil is too strong a word for my taste, as I use it for sadism. He certainly went for retribution however. I don't think we'll know his motivations for sure while he still has legal exposure.
      - naasking 4y ago
        Retribution for what? I'm just not sure what relevance any of this has anyway. The only questions that are relevant for journalism are, "is the information correct?", and "is the information of interest to the public?". Every source has their own motives, as does every journalist, and no story is so detailed as to paint the full picture. These questions are ultimately all irrelevant.
        monetus 4y ago
headsoup 4y ago
I think that's why people need to look past the character and heresays and look at the facts and processes. Ignore Assange's character, make him an anonymous person instead and think "is the process X person has gone through for Y actions reasonable/legal/supportable?" Should whistleblowers be supported or vilified?
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  Ignore Assange's character, focus on leaks of dubious, probably state actor origin, precisely timed in their release. Focus on which state propaganda network hosted his show, whom he met with in the embassy, etc.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    Got non-circumstantial evidence for that? I mean there certainly should be some for the seriousness of his pursuit. I don't like the guy, but I also don't like arguments based on political narratives. Is the evidence Assange released factual?
    - mhh__ 4y ago
      The Nazis spent a lot of time acquiring factual information about the Katyn massacre, it's worth knowing the motives. Assange has certainly played with outright lies e.g. Seth Rich. Most of WikiLeaks output as far as I'm aware is mostly truthful to what was given to them, with the caveat that they are telling a story (e.g. bellingcat have no issues finding dirt on Russians, WikiLeaks don't). They are also very happy to cause collateral damage of their own, IIRC they're very happy to leak personal details & CC numbers of people associated with those they dislike (iirc it was democratic donors in some US state, the data was leaked unredacted).
    - vntok 4y ago
      If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves. Even if what you do leak is factually true.
snehk 4y ago
They did thing an and thing a was considered to be okay when one political party benefitted from a. The exact same thing a was then considered to be bad when it didn't benefit that party anymore. It's quite simple. If you didn't criticize me when he first started doing a and even cheered him on and then turn around when the exact same things don't benefit you anymore, don't claim that you were ever cheering him on for the action itself.
kerkeslager 4y ago
> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. Are they? What's the "evil" you're accusing them of? If you're going to accuse people of things, don't be vague.
- EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
  I assume things like: a) Alleged sexual assault of staffers (which again, alleged, but could be considered evil) b) Leaking of personal information that is of no public interest, e.g. unredacted SSNs c) Leaking private medical records of otherwise ordinary individuals, including e.g. medical records of teenagers who were raped d) Leaking the names of people who are LGBTQ+ in dictatorial countries where that's illegal, putting their lives in danger e) Timing the release of DNC hack is arguable, but I could see how someone might consider the timing of that release to be evil f) There's some antisemitic stuff happening with Assange/Wikileaks. There's nothing like, glaringly out of line, but there's a whooole lot of stuff that's just over the line. (e.g. use of (((name))), calling his opponents "Jewish" media, employing holocaust denier and denying it, etc) g) Assange himself is quoted as saying, "[We might] have blood on our hands" due to their editorial policy of publishing everything, unredacted, about potentially vulnerable people
  - varjag 3y ago
    Handing over the advance file of leaked cables to Belarusian KGB. Rot in prison, Julian.

by 206lol 4y ago

naasking 4y ago

> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things What evil things, specifically?

zzzeek 4y ago
He preferred the election of Donald Trump and worked to make that happen. His preferences in specific political outcomes are well known: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks... So yes, that would be why $politicalside doesn't like him, because he aligned with a very specific, pro-fascist $politicalside (whether or not he is actually a fascist). downmod away folks but that's why $politicalside doesnt like Assange. He is extremely biased which makes the "journalist" angle look pretty weak. there's your answer
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  Having a preference you don't like is pretty different from "doing evil". I mean, I don't like that preference either, but the documents leaked were real, and I haven't heard that Wikileaks/Assange had equivalent dirt on Trump they could have leaked and didn't.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Even if he did have dirt on Trump and didn't publish it, I'm not sure why that's evil. Discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop was held back before the last election and most journalists still think that was perfectly justified. Either both are evil, or neither are, we should not apply double standards.
  - zzzeek 4y ago
    well a lot of us think Trump was pretty much the definition of evil, i mean, extorted an entire country with the threat of illegally withholding US military aid unless they made up political campaign propaganda for him, sometimes you have to just draw a line, like when it's blindingly obvious Assange preferred helping to install a corrupt grifter to run the US government into the dirt. He hates the US government. A lot of us USians think "try to wreck the US government by installing a mobster as president" is evil.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Responses like this are just so bizarre to me. Do you think other Presidents didn't extort other countries for various concessions, even selfish ones that help their political ambitions? Do you think other Presidents were not grifters? Perhaps you should look into Obama's and the Clinton's net worth before and after their presidency. What really broke people's brains about Trump is that he was openly rude and obnoxious and unapologetic about it, and so didn't hide the self-serving behind a polite facade that preserved the collective fiction that politicians were looking out for the people and not themselves. That's what people both love and hate about him.
      - zzzeek 4y ago
        > Do you think other Presidents didn't extort other countries for various concessions, even selfish ones that help their political ambitions? illegally withheld US military aid unless the country fabricated a story to help the candidate's campaign? No Democratic president in modern times has done such a thing. Obama had a fully Republican congress for 6 years and they would have impeached him for such a thing. But that didn't happen. Nor for Clinton, who was of course impeached, but not for extorting another country; just for lying about sexual favors. that's the best they could come up with. If either president had some something 1% as evil as what Trump did in just that one incident, we of *course* would have been hearing about it for years.
      - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
        Reagan had Contra, so there’s definitely precedent. I am reluctant to file it under “normal business” though.
- pydry 4y ago
  Clinton expressed a thinly disguised desire to see him assassinated. Of course he preferred $not Clinton. Any journalist in the same position would.
monetus 4y ago
“Rep. Dana Rohrabacher told Assange “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr. Assange ... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks,” The Daily Beast reported. He got stiffed in that respect, but he did achieve his specific goal of tanking Clinton's campaign. Old interview of him talking about it: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/25/exclusive_wikileaks_julian_assange_on_releasing https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/25/exclusive_wikileaks_j...
- naasking 4y ago
  I'm aware, I'm just curious what the OP specifically finds "evil" in these or other actions. Most journalists preferred Hillary, Assange likely did not, and his journalism hindered her campaign. OK, where is the "evil" specifically?
  - monetus 4y ago
    I can't speak for op and evil is subjective - If I have to take a stab at their thoughts, it would be along the lines that he was being a useful idiot for an entity whose goal was to harm a society. You can debate those points; what questions he should have asked, if what the Mueller report says about his sources is true, if he had any actual malice - evil is too strong a word for my taste, as I use it for sadism. He certainly went for retribution however. I don't think we'll know his motivations for sure while he still has legal exposure.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Retribution for what? I'm just not sure what relevance any of this has anyway. The only questions that are relevant for journalism are, "is the information correct?", and "is the information of interest to the public?". Every source has their own motives, as does every journalist, and no story is so detailed as to paint the full picture. These questions are ultimately all irrelevant.
      - monetus 4y ago

headsoup 4y ago

I think that's why people need to look past the character and heresays and look at the facts and processes. Ignore Assange's character, make him an anonymous person instead and think "is the process X person has gone through for Y actions reasonable/legal/supportable?" Should whistleblowers be supported or vilified?

kspacewalk2 4y ago
Ignore Assange's character, focus on leaks of dubious, probably state actor origin, precisely timed in their release. Focus on which state propaganda network hosted his show, whom he met with in the embassy, etc.
- headsoup 4y ago
  Got non-circumstantial evidence for that? I mean there certainly should be some for the seriousness of his pursuit. I don't like the guy, but I also don't like arguments based on political narratives. Is the evidence Assange released factual?
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    The Nazis spent a lot of time acquiring factual information about the Katyn massacre, it's worth knowing the motives. Assange has certainly played with outright lies e.g. Seth Rich. Most of WikiLeaks output as far as I'm aware is mostly truthful to what was given to them, with the caveat that they are telling a story (e.g. bellingcat have no issues finding dirt on Russians, WikiLeaks don't). They are also very happy to cause collateral damage of their own, IIRC they're very happy to leak personal details & CC numbers of people associated with those they dislike (iirc it was democratic donors in some US state, the data was leaked unredacted).
  - vntok 4y ago
    If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves. Even if what you do leak is factually true.

snehk 4y ago

They did thing an and thing a was considered to be okay when one political party benefitted from a. The exact same thing a was then considered to be bad when it didn't benefit that party anymore. It's quite simple. If you didn't criticize me when he first started doing a and even cheered him on and then turn around when the exact same things don't benefit you anymore, don't claim that you were ever cheering him on for the action itself.

kerkeslager 4y ago

> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. Are they? What's the "evil" you're accusing them of? If you're going to accuse people of things, don't be vague.

EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
I assume things like: a) Alleged sexual assault of staffers (which again, alleged, but could be considered evil) b) Leaking of personal information that is of no public interest, e.g. unredacted SSNs c) Leaking private medical records of otherwise ordinary individuals, including e.g. medical records of teenagers who were raped d) Leaking the names of people who are LGBTQ+ in dictatorial countries where that's illegal, putting their lives in danger e) Timing the release of DNC hack is arguable, but I could see how someone might consider the timing of that release to be evil f) There's some antisemitic stuff happening with Assange/Wikileaks. There's nothing like, glaringly out of line, but there's a whooole lot of stuff that's just over the line. (e.g. use of (((name))), calling his opponents "Jewish" media, employing holocaust denier and denying it, etc) g) Assange himself is quoted as saying, "[We might] have blood on our hands" due to their editorial policy of publishing everything, unredacted, about potentially vulnerable people
- varjag 3y ago
  Handing over the advance file of leaked cables to Belarusian KGB. Rot in prison, Julian.