Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by Joe88, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    YouTube would be WikiLeaks and Vimeo would be the site the documents actually were released on in the example.
    Saying something has been released to little attention is to quite literally acknowledge Assange was correct that the information was insignificant unless journalists will not pay attention to genuine government documents if they aren’t served to them on a silver platter on the biggest platform, in which case you shouldn’t be listening to those journalists to begin with.
     
  2. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    If all Assange cared about was how much attention a story gets, that makes Wikileaks itself no better than Fox, CNN, or clickbait sites. The fourth estate has been failing us for a while now, and it's just unfortunate to see supposedly "independent" outlets follow down that same path.
     
  3. kevin corms

    kevin corms GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    6
    Feb 21, 2015
    Canada
    well now you are just a hypocrite.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Exposing disgusting corruption from the Clintons is taking a side? Just how tribal are you?
     
  4. SG854

    SG854 If It Bleeds, We Can Kill It

    Member
    11
    Feb 17, 2017
    Comoros
    One thing the media is, is that it’s hungry to get as much dirt on Trump. If the media didn’t pick up those leaks then the information was so insignificant that they couldn’t get any juicy stuff from it. Either that or the information was already published which is why they didn’t pick it up.

    And technically the unreleased information would be considered released even if it’s on a lesser site and means Assange didn’t withhold anything. It’s really up to the News publications if they want to pick up the story or not.
     
  5. kevin corms

    kevin corms GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    6
    Feb 21, 2015
    Canada
    I dont think you understand it, Trump = ratings and they can get people to talk about him all day. Very little cost to get people to just fight with each other about Trumps tweets, or aoc's tweets... they dont even know which countries are being bombed.
     
  6. ArugulaZ

    ArugulaZ GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    5
    Sep 17, 2009
    United States
    "The UK must resist Trump?" He helped get him elected!
    Also, he's really got his Bobby Fischer/Howard Hughes crazy man look going on right there.
     
  7. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Ignoring blatant corruption in a foreign government to instead focus on exposing personal e-mails mostly related to planning a wedding is taking a side, yes. Ultimately it's a moot point because

    Assange is now in jail, Hillary has never been formally charged with anything, and everybody in the Trump administration uses personal e-mail to send/receive classified information. I'd love to see conservatives be consistent on ANYTHING for once, but we all know it isn't gonna happen.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 21, 2019
    IncredulousP likes this.
  8. kevin corms

    kevin corms GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    6
    Feb 21, 2015
    Canada
    That is so wrong I dont even know where to begin, you might want to do a little research. Only thing accurate is that Hillary isnt in jail, the Clintons are much too integrated into the government to go to jail. Even Trump wont be going to jail, even if anything they accuse him of sticks. The democrats even had bots from a third arty that they claimed were Russians, not that the gop is any better or putin is much different than the Americans... only thing we can do is shine light on evil until its exposed enough to go away. You dont go pick the evil you hate less, you expose it all.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    wow, people really are super tribal. When people say things like this its pretty obvious you cant change their mind, im going to watch stranger things and smoke a joint. If im going to waste my time it may as well be doing something enjoyable lol.
     
    Last edited by kevin corms, Jul 21, 2019
  9. SG854

    SG854 If It Bleeds, We Can Kill It

    Member
    11
    Feb 17, 2017
    Comoros
    That’s what got him elected. He’s knows that they grasp on to anything even make a story about him getting two scoops of Ice Cream. He knows how to play the media to get free coverage.
     
  10. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    If that information is wrong, you'll want to take it up with the Ecuadorian government and the Spanish security firm they hired which concluded that Assange clearly has ties to Russian intelligence.

    There were multiple months-long investigations into Hillary. The reason she isn't in jail is because they couldn't find evidence of any crime, not for lack of trying.

    Even though the illegal hush money payments have already been proven beyond a doubt, I fear you're correct. And if we don't charge Trump for his blatant criminal activity, the next guy looking to use the presidency for blanket immunity is going to be so much worse. Far smarter and far more subtle, but worse.
     
    smf and IncredulousP like this.
  11. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    If you're going to call me a hypocrite from something I posted three months ago, could you at least explain how?
     
  12. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    The unreleased information was obtained in 2014, I doubt there's a lot on Trump in there, if at all. Assange chosing not to release the unreleased half of the documents cache on his platform is used to infer russian allegiance.

    You got something confused there. I'm not making the argument Assange cares how much attention his leaks get. YOU are making the argument that his refusal to publish the documents directly lead to the leak getting less attention, if you weren't you wouldn't have a problem with Assange leaving the leak for a different platform to publish for the reasons he stated.
    The whole argument around Assange refusing to publish the unreleased half of the russian documents cache from 2014 is that it has gotten less attention on a different platform and how this is a calculated play not to damage the russian government while no one can explain how a story on government corruption will only get attention if it's posted on a specific site. In reality you're making the argument that journalists in general are just silly mouthbreathers, somehow I doubt that.

    The "blatant corruption" you refer to has been ignored by journalists as well as it has gotten "little attention". Please do go on and make your argument how the journalistic class at large is a russian asset.

    Thanks Captain Obvious. I wonder how he's supposed to obtain material without having ties to anyone. You're making the quintessential "guilt by association" argument, which to be fair isn't a hard leap to make when it comes to Russia.
    I have previously given my opinion on the article that you chose to ignore. In my estimation preparing information for release as soon as it is obtained does not establish coordination and that is really the only example of coordination the article gave, without further information it makes him a useful idiot for the russians at best.
     
    Last edited by supersonicwaffle, Jul 21, 2019
  13. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    No, that's not the argument I'm making. I'm only arguing that Assange failed to live up to his mission statement for Wikileaks, thus making himself and the outlet obsolete in the process.

    I said "blatant corruption in a foreign government," specifically referring to leaks on the Russian government and Putin. These things have not been ignored by the media at large, only by Assange in order to keep himself out of danger.

    Wikileaks never would have built any rapport with the general public if Assange had been transparent about his ties to state-sanctioned Russian intelligence activities. It's completely counter-intuitive to what their supposed goals were.

    On that we agree, in the end he amounted to little more than a useful idiot. Putin clearly held all the power in the relationship.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
  14. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    I agree that he compromised WikiLeaks' mission by going directly after Hillary.

    From the article you linked here:

    I think at this point it would be wise for you to compile a list of which points in the articles you post you think are incorrect to have a basis for discussion.

    Because being identified as a WikiLeaks source has worked so well for Chelsea Manning, Assange should just be up front and transparent about them. Got it.
     
  15. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    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 guess that's not surprising in the grand scheme of things, considering we were at the height of election season and the Russian government wasn't one of the candidates. I'm sure the attention on the Hillary leaks helped to keep it buried, too.

    Chelsea Manning was an individual whistleblower of the sort that we were lead to believe Wikileaks partnered with exclusively. I don't know how you expect the GRU would have been punished, what with them being a large clandestine organization with the backing of the Russian government. But yeah, of course Assange wouldn't have wanted to trash his own image by revealing that connection.
     
  16. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    How does the source change the validity of original unaltered documents?
    Why does the source need to compromise Assange in your scenario? He had enough personal reasons to go after Hillary without the influence of another entity.

    How would it have changed anything if it was released on WikiLeaks then? That just further invalidates the argument.
    You're also dismissing that the leaks haven't gotten attention anywhere in the world.

    Oh it's not just about punishment but you can rest assured that giving up sources, whoever they are and whatever motives they hold, will catapult WikiLeaks into irrelevancy it's professional suicide for Assange. But I guess it would be nice for all the people who are more concerned with the motives behind publishing something rather than the published information itself.
     
  17. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    The fact that you admit he did this for personal reasons rather than to further Wikileak's mission is compromising enough. But in addition to that, when the source is a powerful one, it always demands quid pro quo. In this case, burying any leaks relevant to the Russian government.

    It wouldn't have necessarily gotten any more attention on Wikileaks, but releasing it would've shown a commitment to their own mission. That's also not the only set of leaks they refused to publish relevant to the Russian government/Putin, I already posted the Tweet where Assange claims the release of the Panama papers was funded by George Soros (total horseshit).

    Wikileaks has become irrelevant regardless, and Assange is probably going to jail for life. My concern is having a truly neutral source for ALL leaks and whistleblower information to be published, not selectively so based on the website owner's biases. Also, who knows how many other sources Assange decided to sell out to the Russian government. Maybe that information will be made public with time.
     
  18. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    I admitted to it right after the Mueller report was released. How this invalidates the leaked information in unaltered documents he has released on Hillary however is beyond me but you do you.

    You're literally making no sense and just make up hypotheticals that fit your scenario. If going after Hillary was a mutual interest there's no quid pro quo required.
    As a matter of fact the argument is that using his platform was paramount to gaining the attention the russians desired.

    I'd be happy if you could provide a source that credibly claims that the Panama Papers were offered to WikiLeaks and they refused it. Until then I'll just assume you keep pulling shit out of your ass.

    I can see how a person with socialist tendencies prefers one monolithic monopolistic platform controlled by fallible humans that can be manipulated into acting a certain way.
    Meanwhile here in the real world regular people prefer to have competition and divide power.
     
    Last edited by supersonicwaffle, Jul 21, 2019
  19. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Feb 23, 2009
    United Kingdom
    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%).
     
    Last edited by smf, Jul 21, 2019
    Xzi likes this.
  20. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    It doesn't invalidate the leaks, but it also doesn't make them any less innocuous. IMO Comey's announcement less than ten days from the election that Hillary was still under investigation did far more damage to her chances of winning.

    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.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 21, 2019
    IncredulousP likes this.
Loading...