"Ecuador Will Imminently Withdraw Asylum for Julian Assange..."

[Machismo]

/Sigh



But isn't this the goal of any political platform? It's not illegal, as far as I'm aware, and still journalism. Hit pieces are usually sent before votes happen to impact voters. That's how it works.

I'm sorry you have a problem with the definitions of words.

Your boy got caught being a political operative and a shill for Putin and Trump.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The dnc emails wasnt hacked by an empoylee rush phised the info

They used a spoofing attack

Spoofing attack: involves websites which falsify data by mimicking legitimate sites, and they are therefore treated as trusted sites by users or other programs.

An employee didn't breach the server spoofing and spear phishing were used.

I wasn't speaking of the DNC e-mails there, but something a Wikileaks employee sent Trump Jr.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry you have a problem with the definitions of words.

Your boy got caught being a political operative and a shill for Putin and Trump.

Assuming Wikileaks goes down. Then what, Machismo? We rebuild? Yes, Wikileaks did mistakes. Now what?

[Machismo]

I wasn't speaking of the DNC e-mails there, but something a Wikileaks employee sent Trump Jr.

- - - Updated - - -



Assuming Wikileaks goes down. Then what, Machismo? We rebuild? Yes, Wikileaks did mistakes. Now what?

Have I called for them to go down? Nope. I'm saying they have turned into a political arm of Putin. They are shills, and have lost credibility. Here you are, continuing to lie for them. You are defending lies, corruption, collusion, and political espionage.

Yeah, you are a Trumpster through and through.

[Orbitus]

How can you not?

Wikileaks published. They didn't hack, they didn't force anyone, they didn't redact. They've only published what they were given and what they were given was 100% genuine, as per the FBI itself.

If publishing documents becomes a crime...

If they were bipartisan, they would have published stuff about Republicans, we know that the Russians hacked them too.

[Bullettime]

If they were bipartisan, they would have published stuff about Republicans, we know that the Russians hacked them too.

And Assange admittedly had information on Trump and the RNC but withheld it. And now we're also finding out he sat on a file about Manafort too.

[Shadowmelded]

But isn't this the goal of any political platform? It's not illegal, as far as I'm aware, and still journalism. Hit pieces are usually sent before votes happen to impact voters. That's how it works.

They can't be both a political platform and considered journalists. Journalism is supposed to be independent of special interests (including political) and impartial. They report the facts, not engage in political activity.

[Draco-Onis]

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps Wikileaks has lost its integrity. But let me ask you one thing: Does it mandate dismantling it? If we allow the government to destroy Wikileaks, aren't we letting the pandora box open wide? Aren't we giving the tools to governments led by the Trumps of this world to genuinely enforce a Putin regime, where the media has to follow or be destroyed?

That's my fear and why I defend Wikileaks. I don't agree with everything they've done. I certainly don't agree with the people who manage their Twitter. I would personally limit it to their website, but that's just me. With that said, by removing Wikileaks... well, anyway, we're not there yet. There's a lot of things that can still happen until then.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, do you think that the ideal behind wikileaks means that we shouldn't hold them accountable for wrong doing? Wikileaks is no longer what it was meant to be as such it should be shut down because the reason it had so much impact was because it was seen as a non partisan truth seeking entity that is no longer the case.

[BrerBear]

When they discuss timing for maximum impact it's no longer journalism, it's political action.

Seriously, this point alone destroys the organization's credibility.

They had an agenda. They were not objective.
Yet they tried to present themselves as unbiased truth tellers.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's still journalism. To release an article when it can have maximum impact is a common practice in journalism.

Ironic that you twisted "impact" in the same way Wikileaks twisted its "information".

Journalists may put out stories on the evening news or Sunday paper for maximum attention and sales.
Journalists do not coordinate with one candidate to release stories timed to do maximum damage to the other candidate. That would be (rightfully) scandalous.

You trying to conflate the two is just as disingenuous as Wikileaks themselves.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I am not sure what you are trying to say, do you think that the ideal behind wikileaks means that we shouldn't hold them accountable for wrong doing? Wikileaks is no longer what it was meant to be as such it should be shut down because the reason it had so much impact was because it was seen as a non partisan truth seeking entity that is no longer the case.

My point is more along the lines that even if an establishment is ethically corrupt, should we still allow the government to shut it down?

They can't be both a political platform and considered journalists. Journalism is supposed to be independent of special interests (including political) and impartial. They report the facts, not engage in political activity.

Interesting. Therefore, if Wikileaks only invested themselves in reporting and withdrew themselves from political activism, they would've probably been in a better position. Not that I disagree. Wikileaks was at its best when they exposed the NSA or the Irak files.

[Shadowmelded]

Interesting. Therefore, if Wikileaks only invested themselves in reporting and withdrew themselves from political activism, they would've probably been in a better position

Yes although not entirely. Their selective transparency (wrt Russia for example or Republicans) and disregard for minimizing harm (like the Saudi Arabia debacle) are still discrediting.

[Bullettime]

My point is more along the lines that even if an establishment is ethically corrupt, should we still allow the government to shut it down?



Interesting. Therefore, if Wikileaks only invested themselves in reporting and withdrew themselves from political activism, they would've probably been in a better position. Not that I disagree. Wikileaks was at its best when they exposed the NSA or the Irak files.

Remember that there's effectively two different Wikileaks.

Wikileaks was founded with some decent ideals and actually did call out everyone on their bullshit, published uncensored whistleblower reports, etc.

The problem is and always has been Assange himself. Even other members of Wikileaks that signed on for the cause, so to speak, have said Assange is the problem as he used their collective creation as a tool for his own personal gain, especially after Russia threatened Assange personally if he went through with publishing the Russian documents.

So where pre Russian debacle Wikileaks had a bit of credibility, Assange took a shit all over his own credibility and the credibility of Wikileaks by selling out to Russia and using it for personal vendettas.

[Draco-Onis]

My point is more along the lines that even if an establishment is ethically corrupt, should we still allow the government to shut it down?

Yes because it no longer serves its purpose by being corrupt the death of wikileaks will allow more deserving outlets to take the spotlight. At this point wikileaks is an infection that needs to be removed in order for anyone to have a chance to take its place.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Yes because it no longer serves its purpose by being corrupt the death of wikileaks will allow more deserving outlets to take the spotlight. At this point wikileaks is an infection that needs to be removed in order for anyone to have a chance to take its place.

I can agree with this statement.

Yes although not entirely. Their selective transparency (wrt Russia for example or Republicans) and disregard for minimizing harm (like the Saudi Arabia debacle) are still discrediting.

I understand your point. I agree with you, mostly, although I still think that hurtful publications should still be published when it's for the greater good.

Remember that there's effectively two different Wikileaks.

Wikileaks was founded with some decent ideals and actually did call out everyone on their bullshit, published uncensored whistleblower reports, etc.

The problem is and always has been Assange himself. Even other members of Wikileaks that signed on for the cause, so to speak, have said Assange is the problem as he used their collective creation as a tool for his own personal gain, especially after Russia threatened Assange personally if he went through with publishing the Russian documents.

So where pre Russian debacle Wikileaks had a bit of credibility, Assange took a shit all over his own credibility and the credibility of Wikileaks by selling out to Russia and using it for personal vendettas.

I think that the global point being made, and that I'm finally getting to understand, is that a vast majority of people opposing Wikileaks are not opposing freedom of speech or transparency. They're opposing individuals they feel as morally corrupt or use it as a cloak for a personnal agenda.

In which case, I entirely agree. My allegiance to Wikileaks is only an allegiance of ideology, not an unwavering honor-bound contract. So long that I find people who value transparency of institutions, you'll find in me someone who support it.

[Bullettime]

What we're claiming though is Wikileaks hasn't been that for years. Assange sold the whole thing out years ago while still parading as a bastion for free info.

A lot of us older posters here even used to praise some of the Wikileak's actions. Assange took the whole thing off the rails and the whole org needs to be taken out back and shot with a new group to take center stage.

[Cthulhu 2020]

They curate what they publish, but they do not editorialize. They just give the raw information. The extent to which I'll admit you're right is that they decide what they publish.

Giving very specific sets of raw information, and making people believe that's what's important and other information is not, it's all the same bullshittery. They're no better than any other partisan shitter, and yet so many pretend they are.

[PACOX]

He has nothing to worry about in the US since its leader is currently playing second fiddle to the Russians.

Mueller should slap Assage with papers just because.

Fuck Wikileaks. They aren't aren't about transparency, don't believe that lie. They are out to serve their own agenda.

[D Luniz]

He has nothing to worry about in the US since its leader is currently playing second fiddle to the Russians.

Mueller should slap Assage with papers just because.

Fuck Wikileaks. They aren't aren't about transparency, don't believe that lie. They are out to serve their own agenda.

good chance he might

if the few glimpses into the investigation have shown anything, its that they aren't ignoring any rocks cause of optics

its almost ironic, Mueller is acting the way the rest of the GOP like to claim they as republicans are supposedly, followers of the law, unquestioned patriots

yet they are howling nonstop about Mueller

[Sunseeker]

I so don't care about this kid anymore.

[Mormolyce]

Well seeing as the Swedish rape case eventually closed because he successfully impeded the course of justice, in theory he's free to go. The British police will probably take him in for questioning, not sure if they have anything against him.

We'll find out soon enough if the "sealed indictment" he used as an excuse for refusing to stand trial for his actions in his personal life is actually real.

If Assange fall, so will any media that disagree with Trump, in time.

The media's job is to present facts, not agree or disagree with a particular candidate.

Just educating you on how things work in the West, where we have a democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps Wikileaks has lost its integrity. But let me ask you one thing: Does it mandate dismantling it? If we allow the government to destroy Wikileaks, aren't we letting the pandora box open wide? Aren't we giving the tools to governments led by the Trumps of this world to genuinely enforce a Putin regime, where the media has to follow or be destroyed?

That's my fear and why I defend Wikileaks. I don't agree with everything they've done. I certainly don't agree with the people who manage their Twitter. I would personally limit it to their website, but that's just me. With that said, by removing Wikileaks... well, anyway, we're not there yet. There's a lot of things that can still happen until then.

Whistleblowers do not need Wikileaks in order to blow whistles. Snowden went straight to the press with the NSA leaks. The Guardian and the WaPo. It's almost like the free press is integral to public transparency, and needs to be protected from hostile governments, not extra-national compromised shills like Wikileaks...

Still, the overall concept of Wikileaks wasn't necessarily a bad one. It's just that the people involved were... of weak moral fibre, let's say.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Well seeing as the Swedish rape case eventually closed because he successfully impeded the course of justice, in theory he's free to go. The British police will probably take him in for questioning, not sure if they have anything against him.

We'll find out soon enough if the "sealed indictment" he used as an excuse for refusing to stand trial for his actions in his personal life is actually real.



The media's job is to present facts, not agree or disagree with a particular candidate.

Just educating you on how things work in the West, where we have a democracy.

- - - Updated - - -



Whistleblowers do not need Wikileaks in order to blow whistles. Snowden went straight to the press with the NSA leaks. The Guardian and the WaPo. It's almost like the free press is integral to public transparency, and needs to be protected from hostile governments, not extra-national compromised shills like Wikileaks...

Still, the overall concept of Wikileaks wasn't necessarily a bad one. It's just that the people involved were... of weak moral fibre, let's say.

I'm Canadian, FYI. The very basic concept of the US government is a plague in itself. A two-party system is bound to create division and polarization.