Siding, was used, material was relevant for Wikileaks to stay 'relevant'.Wrong, by siding with one particular government and deciding to withhold any leaks on that government. IDGAF that he published Hillary leaks, I'm only interested in the source of those leaks and how that source compromised Assange.
I have a problem with wikileaks indiscriminate release policy, which puts peoples lives at risk. Even when they supposedly attempted to redact, their incompetence (or maybe it was done on purpose) meant that the redaction was easily undone by pushing ctrl-A.
You can't have a truly neutral source, even the people who are supplying the information aren't neutral. You'd be better off lobbying politics than trying to fix wikileaks mess.
People only want competition because they benefit in the short term from companies tearing their selves apart trying to compete & the dream that they can be the supreme overlord. Socialists see the negative effects of all of that outweigh the positives (just not for the top 1%).
It doesn't invalidate the leaks, but it also doesn't make them any less innocuous.
It's the Russian government dude, they basically operate like any mobsters. Meaning nothing you take from them is free. Of course, it might've only been implied that any leaks Assange published about them would mean he drinks polonium tea, but he clearly received the message regardless.
They did publish it, but only after several other outlets had, and it doesn't change the fact that Assange was parroting Putin's dismissals for a reason.
The fuck are you talking about? I'd love to have multiple neutral hosts of leaked info/whistleblower info, but as it stands now, we don't even have one. And people largely ignore the big bombshells like the Panama papers anyway. Just too much complacency in the world today.
I didn't claim to be making a legal case against him, only a case against what he claimed Wikileaks stood for. I think now that his connection with Russian intelligence has been revealed, there would be a legal case to be made against him for facilitating foreign interference in our elections, but I don't expect the Trump administration will be eager to pursue such charges.What he did in his personal life - doesnt matter, legally.
What he did or did not do (in terms of withholding a leak to release it when it had more impact) - doesnt matter, because thats not what he's accused of.
He probably was on the receiving end of a public smear campaign.
He probably wasnt the best suited to deal with sudden fame.
He maybe might have held a few grudges in relation to some political actors (remember, embassy, public statements of politicians and heads of secret service, unclear international law state).
None of this matters in terms of what he is indicted for.
Provide specific examples of "corruption" from the e-mails and we'll discuss them. I'm not really interested in defending Hillary, but nor did I spot anything particularly damning when skimming the leaks.Leaks revealing corruption are never innocuous, no one has a problem with that unless they have a problem with causing harm to certain individuals or campaigns because the truth is revealed. You're showing your true face.
They had enough access to deliver things to him, thus they had enough access to assassinate him in any number of different ways if so desired.You would have to demonstrated how Russia has the means to physically harm him in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for that ridiculous claim to have any merit.
Yeah Google wasn't really that helpful on this subject, I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt. But if they refused to publish it altogether, that's even more damning.I was unable to verify that WikiLeaks has published something from the Panama Papers leak.
Yeah, TV media tends to avoid anything negative about their own corporate sponsors. But if Wikileaks published none of it, then TV media still had them beat.For what it's worth WikiLeaks heavily criticized the Panama Papers publishers because they released only a very small portion of the leaks, but they're still not transparent enough for your taste.
Sounds like we're saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently. The hosts need to be neutral in that they publish everything they receive, and not only what conforms to their preexisting biases.If you have several hosts there's no need to be neutral unless you expect journalists to be incapable of browsing more site than one. If the hoster doesn't act in the source's interests by redacting too much there's nothing stopping the source from offering the same leaks to another hoster.
We're talking about unaltered documents, the only thing that matters is THAT they get released (with the caveat of minimizing physical harm) not HOW or WHERE they get released.
Provide specific examples of "corruption" from the e-mails and we'll discuss them. I'm not really interested in defending Hillary, but nor did I spot anything particularly damning when skimming the leaks.
They had enough access to deliver things to him, thus they had enough access to assassinate him in any number of different ways if so desired.
Yeah Google wasn't really that helpful on this subject, I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt. But if they refused to publish it altogether, that's even more damning.
Yeah, TV media tends to avoid anything negative about their own corporate sponsors. But if Wikileaks published none of it, then TV media still had them beat.
Sounds like we're saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently. The hosts need to be neutral in that they publish everything they receive, and not only what conforms to their preexisting biases.
Monopoles massively increase the risk of corruption with only very limited means to overcome problems.
Facebook is not being regulated. No one cared for people having the right not to be individually manipulated around voting season. Only when facebook aspired to give people their own currency - suddenly, many institutions demanded regulation. People dont matter. Configurations to set yourself in a position you'll always win - regardless of outcome, apparently do.No, humans increase risk. More organisations means there is less regulation.
Monopolies often exist in capitalism as well.
No, humans increase risk. More organisations means there is less regulation.
Monopolies often exist in capitalism as well.
I thought it was understood that we aren’t talking about the jungle book’s economy?
Yes, there are monopoles in capitalism but they are neither desired nor mandated.
Why did you mention it then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole?
The people creating the monopoly desire it & they aren't necessarily wrong. Interfering also has unintended consequences https://www.businessinsider.com/att-breakup-1982-directv-bell-system-2018-02?r=US&IR=T
Nobody needed an e-mail leak to see that the DNC was biased against Bernie, but bias or no, ultimately he just didn't win enough states in the primary. If older Democratic voters hadn't been so short-sighted, Sanders would be president right now. The Donna Brazile thing there's really no excuse for.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
Or Donna Brazile sending the the town hall questions to Hillary beforehand.
Lol, you act like Putin hasn't been successful in targeted assassinations in nearly every part of Europe already. They don't even need to be in the same room, they could've just packed anthrax or another aerosol into the deliveries. It's not like they'd publicly claim credit, and Ecuador doesn't have enough of a military to be a threat to Russia.Please show a concrete scenario how he would be killed without starting WW3 and bypassing security screening. Simply being in a room with someone doesn't mean you can kill them without consequence.
Or perhaps it wasn't offered to him because they didn't trust Assange to release the info on Putin and his oligarchs. We can only speculate.Let me spell this out for you: THEY WEREN'T OFFERED TO HIM.
Can we move on now?
They likely weren't offered because WikiLeaks has the reputation of releasing too much. There was a public spat between the two publishers over it.
I'm not saying you can't make redactions for the sake of protecting vulnerable individuals, but Assange protecting Putin in order to protect himself is something entirely different from that, is it not? And while the TV media didn't release the entirety of the Panama papers, a number of online outlets did.You can't go around slamming WikiLeaks for what they said with regards to the Panama Papers and then turn around and say the need to publish EVERYTHING.
The leaks contain information that can get people killed, WikiLeaks has repeatedly come under fire for releasing too much of the leaks for that reason. It's why leaks can't be released all at once and need to be prepared.
On the other hand only a small portion of the Panama Papers leaks were published, that was WikiLeaks' main ciriticism.
Nonsense, there's no guarantee of anonymity on Google, and I doubt they'd be willing to host sensitive documents for very long. Particularly in regards to leaks about the US government, you'd have FBI/CIA agents at your door within a day.The argument that everything needs to be released for the sake of neutrality is stupid in more way than one because the platforms would essentially be made obsolote and you would have to do nothing more than upload it to google drive or somewhere else and distribute the link as a source.
Nobody needed an e-mail leak to see that the DNC was biased against Bernie, but bias or no, ultimately he just didn't win enough states in the primary. If older Democratic voters hadn't been so short-sighted, Sanders would be president right now. The Donna Brazile thing there's really no excuse for.
Lol, you act like Putin hasn't been successful in targeted assassinations in nearly every part of Europe already. They don't even need to be in the same room, they could've just packed anthrax or another aerosol into the deliveries. It's not like they'd publicly claim credit, and Ecuador doesn't have enough of a military to be a threat to Russia.
Or perhaps it wasn't offered to him because they didn't trust Assange to release the info on Putin and his oligarchs. We can only speculate.
I'm not saying you can't make redactions for the sake of protecting vulnerable individuals, but Assange protecting Putin in order to protect himself is something entirely different from that, is it not? And while the TV media didn't release the entirety of the Panama papers, a number of online outlets did.
Nonsense, there's no guarantee of anonymity on Google, and I doubt they'd be willing to host sensitive documents for very long. Particularly in regards to leaks about the US government, you'd have FBI/CIA agents at your door within a day.
I didn't say you were using it an as excuse, I said there was no excusing that type of behavior (receiving the questions ahead of time). I wouldn't really consider it any worse than the type of shenanigans which Trump and Fox News engage in, though.I have no interest in using the Donna Brazile thing as an excuse.
I said the leak wasn't necessary to see the DNC's obvious bias against Bernie, that doesn't mean I was opposed to it being published. That said, if Assange went to the trouble of selling out to a foreign intelligence agency to gather this info, I would think it'd be pretty easy to get something like Trump's tax returns as well. Just to give the illusion of being non-partisan, if nothing else.What you quoted was a direct response to you asking for corruption the documents Assange received from Russia exposed.
Since you seem to think that this particular leak wasn't needed then go ahead at go through the material that he refused to publish at the time and make your case why it was more important and time sensitive in 2016 with the elections coming up.
They accepted the packages, did they not? Anything could've been inside.This is going nowhere. Now you're equating assassinating someone who is walking the streets with someone living in an embassy for security. The articles you linked have shown the crude methods with which russians delivered the documents (literally showing up with ski masks and requiring a guard break protocol) and you expect them to be able to deliver anthrax that way ...
If he was willing to refuse their demands for quid pro quo and publish dirt on the Russian government anyway, absolutely, that would've been commendable. It's not commendable to give in to one's own biases and sell out to a particular government agency simply because it serves one's own interests at the moment.If he exposed himself to such a risk to be killed by the russians wouldn't it be commendable to take that risk in order to reveal corruption? Or will your tribal insticts not allow you to do that because the dirt was on the DNC?
Sure, we agree on that. The thing is, information presented to you by intelligence agencies is not the same as leaks. Those are the very entities which leakers/whistleblowers are meant to be exposing.Yes and that's fair. It's why it's good to have more of these WikiLeaks type organizations, ultimately they need to appeal to sources, be willing to work with them and not every single source will agree with one organization's methodology. It's also why guilt tripping them into not working with specific sources is a really bad idea, the platforms should be working with as many as are willing to bring the leaks to light.
I've already posted Assange's bullshit claims that the information on Putin contained within the Panama papers was false and orchestrated for release by George Soros. He couldn't have possibly been any more transparent in showing where his loyalties lie. If you want to ignore clear cut evidence like that, there's nothing I can post which will convince you.This again? Please do go on and show the contents of the material he refused and how them being released on a different site protected putin. Produce something to substantiate your claims, until then we'll just keep running in circles.
That's a decent plan, but exposure on a wide, public scale would still require a greater infrastructure and effort.That's why I said Google Drive or somewhere else. A release like this requires nothing more than uploading the files to a webserver or fileserver somewhere, for instance in the TOR network. You literally do not even adress my point and just fixate on Drive, good job!
Because of your passive aggressive nonsense response of „No, humans increase risk“ as if that made any sense.
The mere fact that it was broken up should tell you that it’s not desirable for the system.
I didn't say you were using it an as excuse, I said there was no excusing that type of behavior (receiving the questions ahead of time). I wouldn't really consider it any worse than the type of shenanigans which Trump and Fox News engage in, though.
If he was willing to refuse their demands for quid pro quo and publish dirt on the Russian government anyway, absolutely, that would've been commendable. It's not commendable to give in to one's own biases and sell out to a particular government agency simply because it serves one's own interests at the moment.
They accepted the packages, did they not? Anything could've been inside.
Sure, we agree on that. The thing is, information presented to you by intelligence agencies is not the same as leaks. Those are the very entities which leakers/whistleblowers are meant to be exposing.
I've already posted Assange's bullshit claims that the information on Putin contained within the Panama papers was false and orchestrated for release by George Soros. He couldn't have possibly been any more transparent in showing where his loyalties lie. If you want to ignore clear cut evidence like that, there's nothing I can post which will convince you.
That's a decent plan, but exposure on a wide, public scale would still require a greater infrastructure and effort.
It wasn't passive aggressive. If you don't understand something then you should ask.
It's not desirable by the people who made the decision, it doesn't prove anything about whether breaking up companies actually benefited the majority of people. The US seems to be based around making money for the top 1% off the backs of hard working people & corruption is rife.
It should be fairly obvious that pointing out that humans are involved with running monopilies is a non-statement.
No one has made the case that the decision has benefited people.