Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says It Cut His Internet(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says It Cut His Internet
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/world/europe/julian-assange-embassy.html?partner=IFTTT&_r=1
220 comments
> Hundreds of comments and conspiracy theories.
There was little to no information available and Wikileaks had released pre-commitment hashes just hours before.
Conspiracy theories are not intrinsically evil you know. They are a natural byproduct of lack of information + high stake issue.
And it should be no surprise that conspiracy theories arise when talking about Wikileaks, a non-profit defying the most powerful political/military apparatus on earth. And with that, right in the middle of v. high-stake national election.
People speculate, they try to infer what is going on despite lacking information and uncover hidden power dynamics. I recommend you read Thucydides's War on Peloponnese just so you can realize how conspiracies are daily occurrences in politics and any structure that holds power. Now what you should not do is believe all of them uncritically. This is another thing. I don't think it is the case here.
> how reactionary we are?
I don't think we have the same definition for the word reactionary? What do you mean?
There was little to no information available and Wikileaks had released pre-commitment hashes just hours before.
Conspiracy theories are not intrinsically evil you know. They are a natural byproduct of lack of information + high stake issue.
And it should be no surprise that conspiracy theories arise when talking about Wikileaks, a non-profit defying the most powerful political/military apparatus on earth. And with that, right in the middle of v. high-stake national election.
People speculate, they try to infer what is going on despite lacking information and uncover hidden power dynamics. I recommend you read Thucydides's War on Peloponnese just so you can realize how conspiracies are daily occurrences in politics and any structure that holds power. Now what you should not do is believe all of them uncritically. This is another thing. I don't think it is the case here.
> how reactionary we are?
I don't think we have the same definition for the word reactionary? What do you mean?
Wow. I admit it. I went all these years without actually knowing the meaning of the word "reactionary".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
It's one of those words you think you can derive meaning from using context clues, but in this case I was wrong.
That is really not the word I thought I was saying.
The word I should have used is "impulsive".
Thank you for correcting me and teaching me something new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
It's one of those words you think you can derive meaning from using context clues, but in this case I was wrong.
That is really not the word I thought I was saying.
The word I should have used is "impulsive".
Thank you for correcting me and teaching me something new.
I was surprised by this word too, some two years ago. You never know when a phrase you took for granted actually turns out to be a political label!
Ha! No worries friend, it happens to me all the time!
[deleted]
"Natural" doesn't necessarily mean "good." Yes, conspiracy theories are a natural byproduct here, but they're still ridiculous. Everyone immediately assumed, on the basis of nothing, that the US or the UK had cut him off, that they wanted to assassinate him, and even crazier stuff. Yet it turns out that his hosts just changed the WiFi password on him, or similar. Maybe they're tired of him crashing on their couch rent-free.
It's a big problem because people mostly don't notice corrections. A lot of people will remember that the US or UK cut off Assange's internet in an attempt to stop the flow of leaks. And of course WikiLeaks deliberately prompted this by making their initial announcement extremely vague and suggestive. The result is that a bunch of people now possess negative information on this issue. They're contributing to the dumbing down of the world.
It's a big problem because people mostly don't notice corrections. A lot of people will remember that the US or UK cut off Assange's internet in an attempt to stop the flow of leaks. And of course WikiLeaks deliberately prompted this by making their initial announcement extremely vague and suggestive. The result is that a bunch of people now possess negative information on this issue. They're contributing to the dumbing down of the world.
> Is anyone else troubled by how reactionary we are?
People are waking up, and they're angry at the machinizations that have been used to influence and flat out control what we believed to be a free democracy.
Personally, I am gratified that HN contains people who are not so cerebral that they would only talk about linux package managers at such a time.
People are waking up, and they're angry at the machinizations that have been used to influence and flat out control what we believed to be a free democracy.
Personally, I am gratified that HN contains people who are not so cerebral that they would only talk about linux package managers at such a time.
Except, you know, they were wrong. It's absolutely fine to talk about these things, but it is also absolutely pertinent that we take a measured approach. There was a lot of down voting of people that took the measured response in that thread and that is NOT healthy for this or any online community.
Wrong about what exactly? There are hundreds of aspects to this story. There is no monolithic "right" or "wrong".
>Wrong about what exactly?
Unfounded reactionary conspiracies, at least that's the context to this thread. I don't think anyone is appealing to a universal morality of "right" or "wrong".
Just yesterday someone implied that the FBI was colluding with the Clintons to falsely blame the Podesta hacks on Russia, and I was downvoted for saying that without proof it's absurd.
Unfounded reactionary conspiracies, at least that's the context to this thread. I don't think anyone is appealing to a universal morality of "right" or "wrong".
Just yesterday someone implied that the FBI was colluding with the Clintons to falsely blame the Podesta hacks on Russia, and I was downvoted for saying that without proof it's absurd.
Maybe the downvotes were because the burden of proof still lies with the FBI or Clintons to show it was indeed Russia.
Conversely, how can you prove that a state did not participate in a cyber attack?
Conversely, how can you prove that a state did not participate in a cyber attack?
Why do you specifically limit the burden of proof with the FBI and the Clintons?
Numerous independent cybersecurity firms and experts have already said Guccifer 2.0 is linked to two Russian intelligence agencies
Numerous independent cybersecurity firms and experts have already said Guccifer 2.0 is linked to two Russian intelligence agencies
> Why do you specifically limit the burden of proof with the FBI and the Clintons?
I don't understand the "and", I specifically wrote "FBI or Clintons".
> Numerous independent cybersecurity firms and experts have already said Guccifer 2.0 is linked to two Russian intelligence agencies
Many of them refer to [1], a post that I wasn't aware of (seriously, I just read claims from politicians whereever I went)
[1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
I don't understand the "and", I specifically wrote "FBI or Clintons".
> Numerous independent cybersecurity firms and experts have already said Guccifer 2.0 is linked to two Russian intelligence agencies
Many of them refer to [1], a post that I wasn't aware of (seriously, I just read claims from politicians whereever I went)
[1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
And by saying "or" you're limiting it to either of those two parties, even though numerous other people have already weighed in on the situation.
OK, so I think this was a misunderstanding. I just "Clinton or the FBI" because those two were mentioned earlier but by no means it was meant to be an exclusive list.
Since they are the "plaintiffs" I was (and am) assuming it's their duty to come up with evidence but this doesn't at all exclude evidence from third parties.
Honestly, I would like to see a thorough discussion about what is probably true and what not. In the media I only hear "It's them", "No, it wasn't us", "Yes, it was!", ...
Apart from that there is always a grain of doubt when it comes to enemies of the state (Putin, Assad, Hussein, Gaddafi, ...) because more often than not "Our sources confirm that ..." don't come with any evidence at all.
Since they are the "plaintiffs" I was (and am) assuming it's their duty to come up with evidence but this doesn't at all exclude evidence from third parties.
Honestly, I would like to see a thorough discussion about what is probably true and what not. In the media I only hear "It's them", "No, it wasn't us", "Yes, it was!", ...
Apart from that there is always a grain of doubt when it comes to enemies of the state (Putin, Assad, Hussein, Gaddafi, ...) because more often than not "Our sources confirm that ..." don't come with any evidence at all.
Yet you are taking Clinton's conspiracy theories at face value?
No, I'm taking the FBI's suspicion at face value, because they're in charge of protecting the U.S. from foreign intelligence threats.
And I'm also taking CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica at face value as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
This prevalence of your reactionary conspiracy witch-hunt is precisely what this thread is about.
And I'm also taking CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica at face value as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
This prevalence of your reactionary conspiracy witch-hunt is precisely what this thread is about.
Please link to where the FBI said the Russians are conspiring to rig the election for Trump.
The FBI said the Podesta Email hack was related to Russia: http://bfy.tw/8Fq5
Just to confirm though, nothing about the Russians conspiring to rig the election for Trump.
>Russians conspiring to rig the election for Trump.
Well, that's your straw man. The evidence shows that Russian intelligence is meddling in the 2016 U.S. Election, and it's focused solely on attacking Trump's competition.
There's no publicly available evidence that shows collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, other than Trump publicly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's email accounts.
Well, that's your straw man. The evidence shows that Russian intelligence is meddling in the 2016 U.S. Election, and it's focused solely on attacking Trump's competition.
There's no publicly available evidence that shows collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, other than Trump publicly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's email accounts.
No, that's what Clinton has repeatedly said throughout the debates.
Are you talking about this thread? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427
What downvoted comments are you referring to exactly?
I agree with you. Even when it's negative news about things I don't like, I always wait to get all the facts before throwing out random theories or excuses.
Like that whole Trump sexual assault video. When it first came out, I thought it was terrible, but I waited for Trump to respond.
I wish more people would `take a measured approach` as you suggested.
Like that whole Trump sexual assault video. When it first came out, I thought it was terrible, but I waited for Trump to respond.
I wish more people would `take a measured approach` as you suggested.
And "measured" response is probably the code word for opinion that you agree with.
Everyone has to decide for him or herself what to up/down-vote.
Everyone has to decide for him or herself what to up/down-vote.
No, measured means exactly what it means. Measured. I have no problems with dissenting opinions on a matter and arguing against their merits. But anyone even slightly critical of wikileaks in that thread were downvoted. There was no measured response, it was a lot of reactionary hypothesis that turned out to be mostly wrong.
So the others are reactionary, spin hypothesis and are mostly wrong. It's no wonder that few will engage with measured responses to that.
It's a chronic temporary insanity that pops up every four years or so. It will pass in exactly 21 days.
Seriously: everyone here does this when we get to crazy time in the election. You're just seeing it on HN more because the Wikileaks kerfuffle happens to overlap the digital liberty stuff we talk about when the election isn't looming.
Seriously: everyone here does this when we get to crazy time in the election. You're just seeing it on HN more because the Wikileaks kerfuffle happens to overlap the digital liberty stuff we talk about when the election isn't looming.
You don't normally have candidates insisting that the election is rigged despite having no evidence to support that assertion. The reason that the insanity subsides after the election is over, is because the majority of people accept the results. The losing candidate concedes that he was defeated fairly, and most of us move on with our lives.
If 40% of the country doesn't accept the results because their candidate is telling them not too, things can quickly get out of hand.
If 40% of the country doesn't accept the results because their candidate is telling them not too, things can quickly get out of hand.
> You don't normally have candidates insisting that the election is rigged despite having no evidence to support that assertion.
This is true, of course. But you have seen that stuff all over the right wing media, reliably, in every election of the past few decades. Trump is merely terrible at message discipline (which is to say: unlike his more mature peers, he actually believes this stuff and will repeat what he reads on Drudge); the specter of brown democrats rigging elections has been a subtext of republican electioneering forever.
This is true, of course. But you have seen that stuff all over the right wing media, reliably, in every election of the past few decades. Trump is merely terrible at message discipline (which is to say: unlike his more mature peers, he actually believes this stuff and will repeat what he reads on Drudge); the specter of brown democrats rigging elections has been a subtext of republican electioneering forever.
Definitely. The constant repetition of this stuff over the last few decades is what enabled Trump.
The difference is mostly one of scale not kind. Except for the major difference that the candidate himself has never said something like this directly, and that candidates have always graciously conceded defeat.
If Donald Trump comes out on November 9th and says "I told you it was rigged. They stole the election from us.", I really don't know what will happen.
I think it's fairly likely there will be at least some small-scale rioting.
I think the best case long term scenario, if this happens, is the creation of a new much more openly racist and xenophobic political party that is too small to gain any real power.
The worst case scenario is obviously civil war, but I think that is still extremely unlikely. Especially because Trump isn't the incumbent, so he lacks any actual power. If he were the losing incumbent, and Hillary was the challenger, I think most die hard Trump supporters would back a power grab.
And the most likely scenario is that a slightly smaller Republican party gets pulled even further right.
The difference is mostly one of scale not kind. Except for the major difference that the candidate himself has never said something like this directly, and that candidates have always graciously conceded defeat.
If Donald Trump comes out on November 9th and says "I told you it was rigged. They stole the election from us.", I really don't know what will happen.
I think it's fairly likely there will be at least some small-scale rioting.
I think the best case long term scenario, if this happens, is the creation of a new much more openly racist and xenophobic political party that is too small to gain any real power.
The worst case scenario is obviously civil war, but I think that is still extremely unlikely. Especially because Trump isn't the incumbent, so he lacks any actual power. If he were the losing incumbent, and Hillary was the challenger, I think most die hard Trump supporters would back a power grab.
And the most likely scenario is that a slightly smaller Republican party gets pulled even further right.
Historically in the US, disenfranchised whites do not riot in the way that disenfranchised/disempowered urban dwellers do.
Typically they conduct what is today recognized as domestic terrorism: lynch mobs, church bombings, bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building, shooting congregants at mosques, killing worshippers at synagogue, etc. More recently, we even saw one example of disenfranchised whites occupying a Federal Bureau of Land Management building in Bend, OR. One notable exception is the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot where whites destroyed a prosperous black section of Tulsa. [0]
Anyway, this is to say that the rioting for non-whites is very different than the resistance exhibited by whites. The socioeconomic reasons for such differences are too various to list, but as a very general statement, poor disenfranchised urban dwellers of color do not have access, mobility, motivation, or organization to attack the forces that undergird their civic misery. In this sense, riot is cathartic, reactionary, and self-defeating.
The targeted violence that characterizes acts of US domestic terrorism may also come from similar feelings of disenfranchisement, but rarely, if ever, do they result in the wholesale destruction of the local environments of the aggrieved.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
Typically they conduct what is today recognized as domestic terrorism: lynch mobs, church bombings, bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building, shooting congregants at mosques, killing worshippers at synagogue, etc. More recently, we even saw one example of disenfranchised whites occupying a Federal Bureau of Land Management building in Bend, OR. One notable exception is the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot where whites destroyed a prosperous black section of Tulsa. [0]
Anyway, this is to say that the rioting for non-whites is very different than the resistance exhibited by whites. The socioeconomic reasons for such differences are too various to list, but as a very general statement, poor disenfranchised urban dwellers of color do not have access, mobility, motivation, or organization to attack the forces that undergird their civic misery. In this sense, riot is cathartic, reactionary, and self-defeating.
The targeted violence that characterizes acts of US domestic terrorism may also come from similar feelings of disenfranchisement, but rarely, if ever, do they result in the wholesale destruction of the local environments of the aggrieved.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
That's a good point. Low population density makes rioting impractical. I think it would be more accurate to say replace riot with violence in my preceding comment.
When I wrote small scale rioting I was thinking more along the lines of small groups of people hunting specific targets. Vandalizing or setting fire to minority houses/churches/businesses.
When I wrote small scale rioting I was thinking more along the lines of small groups of people hunting specific targets. Vandalizing or setting fire to minority houses/churches/businesses.
>the specter of brown democrats rigging elections has been a subtext of republican electioneering forever.
These kinds of accusations are very hypocritical. I have yet to see Democrats accept a loss without claiming stolen or rigged elections. They refuse to accept the 2000 election, said that Republicans stole the state of OH in 2004, and even now claim that the current Republican majorities in both the House and Senate are the result of "gerrymandering."
These kinds of accusations are very hypocritical. I have yet to see Democrats accept a loss without claiming stolen or rigged elections. They refuse to accept the 2000 election, said that Republicans stole the state of OH in 2004, and even now claim that the current Republican majorities in both the House and Senate are the result of "gerrymandering."
There's a strong difference between gerrymandering and outright election rigging / vote fraud, the latter of which is what Donald seems to be suggesting.
Nothing is going to get out of hand. That whole idea just seems like media sensationalism. There may be a minority of people who won't accept the results, but the vast majority of people are going to feel bad or good for a week or two and then go back to worrying about their jobs.
I think it's very unlikely, but people act like we're immune to violent transfers of power because it's never happened to us. Historically peaceful transition of power is the exception.
Based on his current rhetoric, it's seems pretty likely that Trump will come out on November 9th and say the election was stolen.
Sure most people will ignore it, but I live in the South, in the middle of Trump country. The majority of people that I know, over 40, think that Obama and Hillary are evil. They don't disagree with them, they think they are evil.
They thought that the Federal government was going to invade Texas during Jade Helm. A fair amount of them think that Hillary is literally possessed by the devil. Breitbart is the most mainstream news source that they'll listen too, and they get most of their news from conspiracy sites spreading clickbait lies on Facebook (I know because many of them are family members and I see it). They don't believe the polls, and they really think that the only way Trump can lose is if the election is rigged. Oh and they're all heavily armed because they've been buying up ammunition since Obama was elected, in anticipation of a gun ban. (I have guns myself, but I don't have dozens of cases of ammunition in preparation for "the shit hitting the fan" like many people I know do.)
I've never seen anything this bad, even when Obama was elected. I think the major difference is the polarizing effect of most Trump supporters getting the majority of their news from Facebook. Combined with the realization by some that demographics are changing, so this may be the last election they can win.
Again, I think that actual civil war is extremely unlikely because luckily Trump won't be a losing incumbent. But I think that if Trump refuses to concede, a few acts of domestic terrorism are likely.
The FBI just stopped a group of white nationalists who were trying to kick off a religious war by detonating a truck bomb in a mostly Somali apartment complex.
Based on his current rhetoric, it's seems pretty likely that Trump will come out on November 9th and say the election was stolen.
Sure most people will ignore it, but I live in the South, in the middle of Trump country. The majority of people that I know, over 40, think that Obama and Hillary are evil. They don't disagree with them, they think they are evil.
They thought that the Federal government was going to invade Texas during Jade Helm. A fair amount of them think that Hillary is literally possessed by the devil. Breitbart is the most mainstream news source that they'll listen too, and they get most of their news from conspiracy sites spreading clickbait lies on Facebook (I know because many of them are family members and I see it). They don't believe the polls, and they really think that the only way Trump can lose is if the election is rigged. Oh and they're all heavily armed because they've been buying up ammunition since Obama was elected, in anticipation of a gun ban. (I have guns myself, but I don't have dozens of cases of ammunition in preparation for "the shit hitting the fan" like many people I know do.)
I've never seen anything this bad, even when Obama was elected. I think the major difference is the polarizing effect of most Trump supporters getting the majority of their news from Facebook. Combined with the realization by some that demographics are changing, so this may be the last election they can win.
Again, I think that actual civil war is extremely unlikely because luckily Trump won't be a losing incumbent. But I think that if Trump refuses to concede, a few acts of domestic terrorism are likely.
The FBI just stopped a group of white nationalists who were trying to kick off a religious war by detonating a truck bomb in a mostly Somali apartment complex.
Never said violent revolt couldn't happen. It just seems very improbable. I'd bet that the vast majority of those people who believe Obama/Clinton are evil wouldn't be willing to risk their current living situation on that belief when it actually came down to it.
I think it's very improbable as well. At least in the current situation where their candidate isn't actually in power. It's too hard for someone with no really power to get the ball rolling.
>You don't normally have candidates insisting that the election is rigged despite having no evidence to support that assertion.
I agree that Clinton's repeated conspiratorial assertions that Russia is trying to rig the election is dangerous to democracy.
I agree that Clinton's repeated conspiratorial assertions that Russia is trying to rig the election is dangerous to democracy.
...along with evidence of Russian hacking of elections databases?
And?
Chinese and Russian state hackers are constantly breaking into US systems. I'm sure American state hackers are constantly breaking into theirs. This is nothing extraordinary.
Thank you for validating that Clinton's repeated conspiratorial assertions are dangerous to democracy. It seems like you will doesn't accept the results you don't like, just Democrats have always done when they lose.
Chinese and Russian state hackers are constantly breaking into US systems. I'm sure American state hackers are constantly breaking into theirs. This is nothing extraordinary.
Thank you for validating that Clinton's repeated conspiratorial assertions are dangerous to democracy. It seems like you will doesn't accept the results you don't like, just Democrats have always done when they lose.
So now evidence is not evidence. Only vague accusations are evidence. Got it.
No, no evidence is no evidence.
So which is it? Claims of vote rigging are dangerous to democracy or they aren't? If they're dangerous, then I can play you audio of Trump making them.
Now that we've got that out of the way. Hillary isn't making claims of vote rigging, she's making claims that Russians hacked emails and released them to influence the election.
Her claims are backed up by the United State's intelligence agencies.
Now that we've got that out of the way. Hillary isn't making claims of vote rigging, she's making claims that Russians hacked emails and released them to influence the election.
Her claims are backed up by the United State's intelligence agencies.
That's not the way hypocrisy works. You don't get to respond with "I know you are but what am I" when being called out it.
Her claims the Russians are trying to rig the election for Trump are absolutely not backed up by the United State's intelligence agencies.
Her claims the Russians are trying to rig the election for Trump are absolutely not backed up by the United State's intelligence agencies.
Accusing someone of hypocrisy doesn't immunize yourself from claims of hypocrisy. You said "I agree that Clinton's repeated conspiratorial assertions that Russia is trying to rig the election is dangerous to democracy."
Answer the question. Do you think claims that the election is rigged is dangerous or not? You can simultaneously believe both candidates are acting dangerously.
There is however, a very big difference between the 2 claims. Clinton claims that Russia is trying to influence the election. Trump claims that the election is rigged at the polling booths.
>Her claims the Russians are trying to rig the election for Trump are absolutely not backed up by the United State's intelligence agencies.
The United State's intelligence agencies issued public statements that they believe DNC emails were hacked by Russia. The emails were then leaked during an election. That's pretty good evidence that they are trying to influence that election.
Russia also has a history of propping up right wing parties throughout Europe. Add that in, and she has very strong evidence to suggest the Russians are trying to influence the election.
Notice she hasn't said that they've successfully rigged the election. She said they are attempting to influence it.
I don't have a problem with Donald Trump saying the media is trying to influence the election in Hillary's favor. I have a problem with him saying the vote is rigged and that the election was stolen. Especially before the ballots have been cast.
Answer the question. Do you think claims that the election is rigged is dangerous or not? You can simultaneously believe both candidates are acting dangerously.
There is however, a very big difference between the 2 claims. Clinton claims that Russia is trying to influence the election. Trump claims that the election is rigged at the polling booths.
>Her claims the Russians are trying to rig the election for Trump are absolutely not backed up by the United State's intelligence agencies.
The United State's intelligence agencies issued public statements that they believe DNC emails were hacked by Russia. The emails were then leaked during an election. That's pretty good evidence that they are trying to influence that election.
Russia also has a history of propping up right wing parties throughout Europe. Add that in, and she has very strong evidence to suggest the Russians are trying to influence the election.
Notice she hasn't said that they've successfully rigged the election. She said they are attempting to influence it.
I don't have a problem with Donald Trump saying the media is trying to influence the election in Hillary's favor. I have a problem with him saying the vote is rigged and that the election was stolen. Especially before the ballots have been cast.
"Conspiracy theories" are pretty broad, and some of them are crackpot, but some of them are reasonable, and some are still true. FWIF, the term didn't have a negative connotation until the CIA started to use it to discredit things they didn't like to control perception
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-cia-invented-and...
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-cia-invented-and...
People are concerned and disturbed by the opacity around what appear to be deep machinations by several powerful parties. There is clearly something rotten going on but part of the game is obfuscation and misdirection, so people are flailing in absence of solid ground upon which to make assertions about the truth.
The problem is that the conspiracy theories are becoming more and more believable. As more and more have come true (Snowden, Iraq WMD, ...), people have less and less reason to doubt them.
I think one factor is that the standard response to allegations of large scale corruption was "ha! As if the incompetent government could keep a secret that big you conspiracy theorist".
That argument practically disappeared from public discourse in a crazy short time span. To me it seemed like the Snowden/NSA stuff was the nail in the coffin for that one.
That argument practically disappeared from public discourse in a crazy short time span. To me it seemed like the Snowden/NSA stuff was the nail in the coffin for that one.
Which is weird, because massive NSA surveillance had been fairly well known for years. Snowden exposed a lot of interesting details and got it into the public consciousness, but it was only a surprise to people who hadn't been paying attention before. (To be fair, I'm not criticizing such people. They had no reason to pay attention before.)
I don't get the grandparent's Iraq WMD example. That was obvious BS at the time it was being sold to the public. That's an example of propaganda and manipulation of public opinion, but not a conspiracy.
I don't get the grandparent's Iraq WMD example. That was obvious BS at the time it was being sold to the public. That's an example of propaganda and manipulation of public opinion, but not a conspiracy.
I'm with you for both those examples, they were utterly unsurprising to me.
But for most people, these were conspiracy theories. Because the government said they were not true. In the press, in congressional hearings, everywhere. That's enough for most people.
In all honesty though, I've learned I can't use my intuition to predict what people will believe or not. I mean, the Iraq WMD and 9/11 connection stuff was so obviously BS that it was like an absurdist comedy routine. But 70% of Americans believed Saddam was connected to 9/11. And I don't know what the WMD story success rate was but it had to be higher right?
But for most people, these were conspiracy theories. Because the government said they were not true. In the press, in congressional hearings, everywhere. That's enough for most people.
In all honesty though, I've learned I can't use my intuition to predict what people will believe or not. I mean, the Iraq WMD and 9/11 connection stuff was so obviously BS that it was like an absurdist comedy routine. But 70% of Americans believed Saddam was connected to 9/11. And I don't know what the WMD story success rate was but it had to be higher right?
So conspiracy theories are getting more traction, not because the government is up to more shady stuff, but because people are paying less attention? I could buy that.
Basically, but personally I think that people are trying to pay more attention but the tools and methods for attention/information control have gotten so much better that the end effect is similar.
Most people think about politics in terms of how much they can trust individual politicians to tell the truth or maybe in terms of spin and narratives and talking points. But we live in a world where people like Vladislav Surkov exist [1][2][3], the professionals are working at a level that is barely understandable to the rest of us.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov [2] http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21577421-what-departure... (from 2013, Surkov is currently a personal advisor to Putin) [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyop0d30UqQ
Most people think about politics in terms of how much they can trust individual politicians to tell the truth or maybe in terms of spin and narratives and talking points. But we live in a world where people like Vladislav Surkov exist [1][2][3], the professionals are working at a level that is barely understandable to the rest of us.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov [2] http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21577421-what-departure... (from 2013, Surkov is currently a personal advisor to Putin) [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyop0d30UqQ
... and people pay less attention because so much more is going on, we are flooded with information. It is easy to hide bad things in plain sight... kittens will hide it.
"kittens will hide it."
What a delightful phrase!
What a delightful phrase!
Is it actually true that more are correct now than in the past?
The field of Organizational Behavior has done research on 'grapevine communication', and found that most rumors are true. And this was decades ago: http://tqr.nova.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/singh3.pdf
What's changed is that we have more leaked documents, more ability for whistleblowers to mass broadcast anonymously, and more tools for immediately uncovering discrepancies in people's stories. So the rumor mill probably is a little more accurate than in prior eras, but it was probably already reasonably reliable even before the advent of WikiLeaks or whatever.
The other difference is that people now have a lot more incentive to turn to the rumor mill (e.g. r/dncleaks, r/wikileaks, r/the_donald) since the mainstream media has been blatantly ignoring a lot of this stuff, and with the advent of Facebook they can spread whatever they find a lot faster.
What's changed is that we have more leaked documents, more ability for whistleblowers to mass broadcast anonymously, and more tools for immediately uncovering discrepancies in people's stories. So the rumor mill probably is a little more accurate than in prior eras, but it was probably already reasonably reliable even before the advent of WikiLeaks or whatever.
The other difference is that people now have a lot more incentive to turn to the rumor mill (e.g. r/dncleaks, r/wikileaks, r/the_donald) since the mainstream media has been blatantly ignoring a lot of this stuff, and with the advent of Facebook they can spread whatever they find a lot faster.
+1 for the criticism of mainstream media - it is awful and apparently getting worse quickly.
I sometimes have to turn to foreign news like Russia Times (RT), Al Jazeera, and the Israeli Haaretz news (and news from many other countries) to see news stories that are effectively blocked out in the USA. I do look with appropriate scepticism at all foreign and domestic news sources, but when major stories are not covered in domestic news sources there is no choice but to look around the web.
It drives me a little crazy when friends who watch MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc. think that they are getting a full and accurate picture of world events.
I sometimes have to turn to foreign news like Russia Times (RT), Al Jazeera, and the Israeli Haaretz news (and news from many other countries) to see news stories that are effectively blocked out in the USA. I do look with appropriate scepticism at all foreign and domestic news sources, but when major stories are not covered in domestic news sources there is no choice but to look around the web.
It drives me a little crazy when friends who watch MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc. think that they are getting a full and accurate picture of world events.
More are provably correct than in the past.
Um, that is, numerically more are provably correct, not more as a percent. There are far more conspiracy theories (of which I am aware) than there were in the past. I don't know that the fraction that are provably correct is any higher now.
Um, that is, numerically more are provably correct, not more as a percent. There are far more conspiracy theories (of which I am aware) than there were in the past. I don't know that the fraction that are provably correct is any higher now.
More were correct in the past than was believed at the time.
It's troubling that instead of coming right out and saying that Ecuador cut Assange's internet access, they said that "state actors" did, knowing people would blame the U.S. government (as many did in that thread). For an organization that's supposed to be about openness, they seem more than willing to hide information to manipulate people.
It's troublesome that this article which actual has the information about who cut the internet access is dropping off the front page much faster than the previous article which left people with the wrong impression. This is an old tactic; generate headlines by insinuating something, and most people will have moved on to something else when the correction comes. The result is that most people are left with the false impression, even after the facts come out.
It's troublesome that the reaction many people have to their conspiracy theories being proved false are to shrug and say that this doesn't change anything. "If the Clinton campaign didn't get the CIA to do this, then the U.S. government must have pushed the Ecuadorians to do this" or "It was perfectly reasonable to assume a conspiracy based on no evidence because the government does things like this all the time." If proof that your conspiracy theory was based on nothing doesn't trigger any kind of self-reflection or at least admittance of error, then it seems like your world view isn't influenced by facts.
So yes, I'm troubled by several aspects of this.
It's troublesome that this article which actual has the information about who cut the internet access is dropping off the front page much faster than the previous article which left people with the wrong impression. This is an old tactic; generate headlines by insinuating something, and most people will have moved on to something else when the correction comes. The result is that most people are left with the false impression, even after the facts come out.
It's troublesome that the reaction many people have to their conspiracy theories being proved false are to shrug and say that this doesn't change anything. "If the Clinton campaign didn't get the CIA to do this, then the U.S. government must have pushed the Ecuadorians to do this" or "It was perfectly reasonable to assume a conspiracy based on no evidence because the government does things like this all the time." If proof that your conspiracy theory was based on nothing doesn't trigger any kind of self-reflection or at least admittance of error, then it seems like your world view isn't influenced by facts.
So yes, I'm troubled by several aspects of this.
Many would argue that the events as they unfolded have actually vindicated their conspiracy theories by suggesting that Clinton has coerced Ecuador through treats or bribery. Personally, I think this is absurd but this is a common position.
edit: %s/treats/threats
edit: %s/treats/threats
> has coerced Ecuador through treats
Well, Halloween is just around the corner, I wonder how many full-size snickers bars they'd need... :->
Well, Halloween is just around the corner, I wonder how many full-size snickers bars they'd need... :->
Yes I am troubled by how reactionary we are.
I am not troubled by how the Internet enables gossip on a global scale. Improved capability for communications and cross-culture dialog is always a good thing. Not all human communication is Yeats poetry.
"conspiracy theory" (in my opinion) is a weakened phrase which in modern usage seems to mean "narrative I find unbelievable" rather than an actual conspiracy.
For better or worse, it seems to be a phrase that indicates a profound arrogance of the speaker, rather than a description of the topic they don't believe. I wish this phrase would die. It is a polarizing tool that is not effective for persuading people who are inclined to disagree.
I am not troubled by how the Internet enables gossip on a global scale. Improved capability for communications and cross-culture dialog is always a good thing. Not all human communication is Yeats poetry.
"conspiracy theory" (in my opinion) is a weakened phrase which in modern usage seems to mean "narrative I find unbelievable" rather than an actual conspiracy.
For better or worse, it seems to be a phrase that indicates a profound arrogance of the speaker, rather than a description of the topic they don't believe. I wish this phrase would die. It is a polarizing tool that is not effective for persuading people who are inclined to disagree.
[deleted]
I like the phrase that came up on one of the 538 podcasts, basically calling them Data Deniers.
Even if you make ad hom accusations of speaker bias, i.e. "MSM is rigged against me!", it doesn't immediately invalidate the message.
Even if you make ad hom accusations of speaker bias, i.e. "MSM is rigged against me!", it doesn't immediately invalidate the message.
That's ironic because this year Nate Silver is big on his polls-plus models that include all kinds of non-data factors. He talks the talk but then goes and pushes a bunch of models that don't focus on data.
He's right though, data talks. The only model that was even more accurate than 538's in the 2012 election was Sam Wang's model at the Princeton Election Consortium and Sam Wang did only the bare minimum to mesh the gears* whereas Nate Silver was trying to "weight" some of the polls and blew the call on some states.
* Note that there's a difference between accuracy and precision. A poll can be very accurate (little variation between measurements) but not very precise (the center of the distribution is skewed to one side). For example Rasmussen is famous for this, they are a super accurate pollster but average something like +7 Republican. Different types of polls survey different groups of people (landline, cell, online, focus-group, etc) and you have to take that "house effect" out to really average different types of polls together.
He's right though, data talks. The only model that was even more accurate than 538's in the 2012 election was Sam Wang's model at the Princeton Election Consortium and Sam Wang did only the bare minimum to mesh the gears* whereas Nate Silver was trying to "weight" some of the polls and blew the call on some states.
* Note that there's a difference between accuracy and precision. A poll can be very accurate (little variation between measurements) but not very precise (the center of the distribution is skewed to one side). For example Rasmussen is famous for this, they are a super accurate pollster but average something like +7 Republican. Different types of polls survey different groups of people (landline, cell, online, focus-group, etc) and you have to take that "house effect" out to really average different types of polls together.
Not quite sure how experimenting with different data models is ironic to calling someone a data denier.
Which "non-data factors" does the polls-plus model use, specifically?
Which "non-data factors" does the polls-plus model use, specifically?
When there is an emergency humans look for an explanation of the events. Even when there is no possibility of finding one, they will still choose a fictional one derived from their existing world views.
Putting huge effort into explaining a true emergency (eg fire, fight etc) is evolutionary useful, doing so for a non emergency is not.
For a complex of reasons related to modern communication and the nature of celebrity among other things, the latest events around Assange feel like an emergency to some people and so they desperately seek an immediate explanation at all costs.
In general this is always a problem because those removed from events could use their distance by calmly looking at the situation objectively and rationally instead of promulgating a wave of attractive but erroneous conspiracy theories (which are always entirely destructive).
As a life rule it is convenient to note which category various information sources fall into.
Putting huge effort into explaining a true emergency (eg fire, fight etc) is evolutionary useful, doing so for a non emergency is not.
For a complex of reasons related to modern communication and the nature of celebrity among other things, the latest events around Assange feel like an emergency to some people and so they desperately seek an immediate explanation at all costs.
In general this is always a problem because those removed from events could use their distance by calmly looking at the situation objectively and rationally instead of promulgating a wave of attractive but erroneous conspiracy theories (which are always entirely destructive).
As a life rule it is convenient to note which category various information sources fall into.
"Reactionary"? could you point some examples of reactionism on HN? Also, I didn't see much (if any) "conspiracy theories" in the original thread. Finally I don't understand how a discussion about current political events can be considered gossips.
I'd be more troubled by time and effort spent promoting ad hominem arguments and active censorship of discussions about theories that can actually be refuted (and the seemingly bare interest in even refuting them).
Wikileaks: Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs during FARC peace negotiations.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788369924175441920
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788369924175441920
Multiple US sources say Assange is pulling a PR stunt.
Multiple US sources say Trump is the anti christ.
Multiple US sources say Assange is a false flag placed by the Reptilians.
Wow, this is easy!
Multiple US sources say Trump is the anti christ.
Multiple US sources say Assange is a false flag placed by the Reptilians.
Wow, this is easy!
This isn't a very interesting criticism. If WikiLeaks says an anonymous source told them something that is a.) completely believable and b.) isn't what a onymous source would be able to say, I see no reason to doubt them. I don't have an extraordinarily high confidence in a claim based on an anonymous witness alone, but journalists (lets squint hard enough to still call Assange a journalist for a moment) do this all the time.
Do you have other evidence to bring to the table? Do you have reason to doubt a.) or b.)?
Do you have other evidence to bring to the table? Do you have reason to doubt a.) or b.)?
On the one hand we have a reputable media company reporting quotes from reputable sources, and on the other we have WikiLeaks (with a very well documented agenda) claiming the exact opposite from an anonymous source.
The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes, whereas WikiLeaks and its anonymous source, aren't putting anything on the line since a large part of their business model depends on making claims that can only be proven in their favor, but never in reverse.
Example, this claim about who is responsible for cutting Assange's internet access. Let's say the US did not cut his internet. There is absolutely nothing The State Department can say to make WikiLeaks supporters believe them. Whereas, anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters since the only people that can provide evidence to the contrary, WikiLeaks supporters don't trust. It's the same approach taken by Alex Jones (They want to take your guns, they want to put you in fema camps, etc...), Trump (A lot of people are saying...)
Oh and btw, I'm not saying you should just blindly believe what the government tells you, but until any actual evidence is provided to support another explanation, there is no reason to assume it is true.
Bonus hypocritical Trump tweet: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/78183870603031347...
The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes, whereas WikiLeaks and its anonymous source, aren't putting anything on the line since a large part of their business model depends on making claims that can only be proven in their favor, but never in reverse.
Example, this claim about who is responsible for cutting Assange's internet access. Let's say the US did not cut his internet. There is absolutely nothing The State Department can say to make WikiLeaks supporters believe them. Whereas, anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters since the only people that can provide evidence to the contrary, WikiLeaks supporters don't trust. It's the same approach taken by Alex Jones (They want to take your guns, they want to put you in fema camps, etc...), Trump (A lot of people are saying...)
Oh and btw, I'm not saying you should just blindly believe what the government tells you, but until any actual evidence is provided to support another explanation, there is no reason to assume it is true.
Bonus hypocritical Trump tweet: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/78183870603031347...
> The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes
I think the disconnect here is just how much weight you put on this statement here. For a significant number of people a lot of recent news has severely damaged the reputations of these institutions as well as shown that their reputations really wouldn't be impacted by their claims being shown to be false.
I think the disconnect here is just how much weight you put on this statement here. For a significant number of people a lot of recent news has severely damaged the reputations of these institutions as well as shown that their reputations really wouldn't be impacted by their claims being shown to be false.
>anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters
It used to be a saying that geeks can't do politics. And now after what I've seen of years of slashdot, digg, Reddit, and HN I think its fair to say that saying is true. The problem I see is that people who think they're smart think they must automatically be immune to propaganda, bias, etc because, well, they're so smart. I find the techie personality to be unusually vulnerable to propaganda and conspiracy theories. I think this type of thinking gives simple answers and black and white thinking that are intellectually satisfying and dismiss the incredible complexity of human interactions. Its very easy to just eat up anti-US college identity politics and make the US be the devil in all things. Its simple and is emotionally satisfying. The problem is that its also incorrect, especially when your "good guys" are Russia, China, and Iran.
It used to be a saying that geeks can't do politics. And now after what I've seen of years of slashdot, digg, Reddit, and HN I think its fair to say that saying is true. The problem I see is that people who think they're smart think they must automatically be immune to propaganda, bias, etc because, well, they're so smart. I find the techie personality to be unusually vulnerable to propaganda and conspiracy theories. I think this type of thinking gives simple answers and black and white thinking that are intellectually satisfying and dismiss the incredible complexity of human interactions. Its very easy to just eat up anti-US college identity politics and make the US be the devil in all things. Its simple and is emotionally satisfying. The problem is that its also incorrect, especially when your "good guys" are Russia, China, and Iran.
I agree with you 100%. Most political talking points on sites like Reddit (and even HN) are just platitudes. The problem is they've been repeated so often that even questioning something is ground for a public tar and feathering.
We cannot have any sort of meaningful dialog when the opposition on both sides is painted into a caricature.
George W. Bush had an amazing quote during the memorial service for the fallen Dallas PD officers. Paraphrasing but: "We judge other groups by their worst and ourselves by our intentions"
We cannot have any sort of meaningful dialog when the opposition on both sides is painted into a caricature.
George W. Bush had an amazing quote during the memorial service for the fallen Dallas PD officers. Paraphrasing but: "We judge other groups by their worst and ourselves by our intentions"
I don't know that there's a reason to specifically doubt a or b, but in contrast to their other major (and known valid) leaks, this one is much more tied to their organizational interests, so there's that much more reason to be healthily skeptical of it.
> that is a.) completely believable
How so?
If ecuador was going to give in to US demands, why wouldnt they just let the US extradite Asssange?
Clearly the US doesnt have the type of pull with Ecuador to force their hand, why would you think this is any different?
you believe that john kerry alone was able to convince them to cut the internet, but the fact that 3 separate countries want him arrested is meaningless to them?
Doesnt sound believable to me at all. so yes, i have reason to doubt a)
How so?
If ecuador was going to give in to US demands, why wouldnt they just let the US extradite Asssange?
Clearly the US doesnt have the type of pull with Ecuador to force their hand, why would you think this is any different?
you believe that john kerry alone was able to convince them to cut the internet, but the fact that 3 separate countries want him arrested is meaningless to them?
Doesnt sound believable to me at all. so yes, i have reason to doubt a)
Because they're willing to do one thing but not the other?
Irrelevant to your point, but I hadn't heard “onymous” as the antonym of “anonymous” before, thank you for that.
It isn't a real word I'm afraid, but an FBI invention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous
It is a real word though.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...
Thanks, learned something new.
interesting, I've always used "nonymous" for that, but "onymous" is etymologically sounder
Yeah, I was going to say "nonymous" was etymologically superior, but then I looked up the etymology for anonymous before hitting send.
Given that the English (/Germanic) is "name" and the French is "nom", I would have expected the PIE for name to be some sort of "nVm"-ish thing, whence I expected the Greek to render it is some sort of "non"-ish thing. The actual Greek is ónoma, with the PIE being something like *hnómn. (So my PIE guess was right-ish, but the transition to Hellenic was wrong).
Given that the English (/Germanic) is "name" and the French is "nom", I would have expected the PIE for name to be some sort of "nVm"-ish thing, whence I expected the Greek to render it is some sort of "non"-ish thing. The actual Greek is ónoma, with the PIE being something like *hnómn. (So my PIE guess was right-ish, but the transition to Hellenic was wrong).
This is Ancient Greek and the antonym is "eponymous". Unfortunately it has a double meaning, used more often as "named after".
So we got 'onymous' which has no meaning as an old root.
If the quote is about Wikileaks then I certainly see reason to doubt them. They have obvious motivations.
Ascribing government propaganda to anonymous sources is basically 70% of the New York Times "reporting".
But what seems to be in question here is if WikiLeaks said "US officials speaking on condition of anonymity said that enhanced interrogation was vital to finding Osama Bin Laden," did WikiLeaks actually talk to those officials and did they really say that? Or are they promoting their brand as a marginalized alternative news source that the government is trying to fight?
So do you think he just forgot to pay his bill?
You know the wikileaks Twitter account is Assange, right? I'm going to wait for a reliable third party report on this one.
Is Assange the only one using the wikileaks twitter account? Because it's batshit crazy at times https://heatst.com/politics/wikileaks-posts-and-deletes-anti...
If anything, that website you linked is batshit crazy. At least Wikileaks had the sense to delete the tweets.
The guy is locked with Ecuadorian TV and English food. It is completely plausible that he goes batshit crazy at times. :-)
While I agree that Assange has been under an incomprehensible amount of stress for such a long time, he is getting increasingly radical and less journalistic, such as his (edit: alleged) vendetta against Clinton.
He has repeatedly stated that he would happily release information on Trump and the Republicans if someone would leak it to him.
I'm sure he would, that doesn't make it appropriate to use leaked information to carry out a vendetta.
edit: getting source
edit: getting source
Is it really a vendetta though (genuine question, I'd be happy to see a source), or is it just that the people leaking information to him are doing it at this time, and he's releasing it for 'maximum impact' which has been what Wikileaks always tries to do?
Wikileaks should not serve the agenda of it's sources in reporting information, but of the citizens of the world who need more transparency that they claim to represent.
Here you are:
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-...
People talk a lot about how Putin is an opportunist. I think he saw how bitter Assange was becoming and understood if he gave him the documents, he could step back and let him carry out his vengeance against a woman who had a huge role in forcing him to ground in the embassy ("can't we just drone this guy?"). I'm told this is a Rule of Power. But that is speculation.
Here you are:
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-...
People talk a lot about how Putin is an opportunist. I think he saw how bitter Assange was becoming and understood if he gave him the documents, he could step back and let him carry out his vengeance against a woman who had a huge role in forcing him to ground in the embassy ("can't we just drone this guy?"). I'm told this is a Rule of Power. But that is speculation.
Note the key phrase from that article 'led to speculation that...'
In any case, here's Assange himself discussing this exact thing recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6mARUrPtXk&feature=youtu.be...
Doesn't seem like much of a vendetta according to him.
In any case, here's Assange himself discussing this exact thing recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6mARUrPtXk&feature=youtu.be...
Doesn't seem like much of a vendetta according to him.
It'd been a while since I'd read the article, and you're right, I oversimplified in my memory. I appreciate the counterpoint (though I can't watch it at the moment).
Here's part of his answer:
"There’s been a lot of misquoting of me and WikiLeaks publications. In this particular case, the misquoting has to do with that we intend, or I intend, to harm Hillary Clinton or that I don’t like Hillary Clinton. All those are false. They come about as a result it seems of this campaign and those who are trying to personalize our publications."
"There’s been a lot of misquoting of me and WikiLeaks publications. In this particular case, the misquoting has to do with that we intend, or I intend, to harm Hillary Clinton or that I don’t like Hillary Clinton. All those are false. They come about as a result it seems of this campaign and those who are trying to personalize our publications."
If you want to be seen as neutral, release information when you receive it.
Not "for maximum impact", or if threatened, or "if something happens to me", or any other variation.
If nothing else, it frees (or minimizes) accusations of you being bribed, blackmailed, extorted, having an agenda beyond "releasing information".
Not "for maximum impact", or if threatened, or "if something happens to me", or any other variation.
If nothing else, it frees (or minimizes) accusations of you being bribed, blackmailed, extorted, having an agenda beyond "releasing information".
I could learn to see past an insurance file for WikiLeaks and still regard them as journalists, the idealized WikiLeaks is struggling in an asymmetric conflict with nation states and could probably use some insurance.
It was pretty clear that the account was referring to the trend of Twitter users surrounding their own names with parens as a protest.
"Not only the denigration of the ((())) symbol but also the use of the term ‘tribalist’ to imply Jews is, of course, base racism, a particular racism that Putin shares."
The idea that the "denigration" of an anti-semitic symbol is itself "base racism" is bizarre. Saying that he's using the word "tribalist" to refer to Jews is just incorrect, because the vast majority of the people who surround their names with parens are not Jewish, just doing it in sympathy. Using this accusation to associate him with Putin is just propaganda.
I think the tweet was a bit of pointless adhominem after noticing that a lot of their prominent critics seem to be a monoculture of very similar types of people. It annoys me when Wikileaks tries to act cute and smartassy (which is often), and this tweet bit them in the ass. It was this same hubris that made Assange think he had suddenly become a hot guy when he was in Sweden. Watching the video of him dancing, you can see a guy who thinks that he's finally turned into a butterfly.
"Not only the denigration of the ((())) symbol but also the use of the term ‘tribalist’ to imply Jews is, of course, base racism, a particular racism that Putin shares."
The idea that the "denigration" of an anti-semitic symbol is itself "base racism" is bizarre. Saying that he's using the word "tribalist" to refer to Jews is just incorrect, because the vast majority of the people who surround their names with parens are not Jewish, just doing it in sympathy. Using this accusation to associate him with Putin is just propaganda.
I think the tweet was a bit of pointless adhominem after noticing that a lot of their prominent critics seem to be a monoculture of very similar types of people. It annoys me when Wikileaks tries to act cute and smartassy (which is often), and this tweet bit them in the ass. It was this same hubris that made Assange think he had suddenly become a hot guy when he was in Sweden. Watching the video of him dancing, you can see a guy who thinks that he's finally turned into a butterfly.
Sneering at people who make public gestures of opposition to anti-Semitic tropes as "establishment climbers" sounds like pandering to a particular form of base racism to me, assuming you do so intentionally. I'll concede that it's possible that Assange or whoever tweeted that was unaware of what the parantheses symbolised in a way that someone tweeting "Tribalist symbols for establishment climbing? Most of our critics have pink triangles in their avatar" or worse "Tribalist symbols for establishment climbing? Most of the our critics have yellow stars in their avatar" really couldn't claim (I bet most people not involved with political Twitter are clueless about the parantheses' meaning). But conflating a Jewish symbol with the age old conspiracy theory that the "establishment" is run by people that suck up to Jewish interests by accident is certainly unfortunate....
And it gets even harder to defend the @Wikileaks Twitter account from pandering to anti-Semitism after looking at several of the other tweets unearthed by this search... https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Awikileaks%20jewish&src=t...
And it gets even harder to defend the @Wikileaks Twitter account from pandering to anti-Semitism after looking at several of the other tweets unearthed by this search... https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Awikileaks%20jewish&src=t...
>And it gets even harder to defend the @Wikileaks Twitter account from pandering to anti-Semitism
Oh yeah they are just rabid anti-semites. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/92hpnj
Your link shows completely normal use of the word "Jewish".
Oh yeah they are just rabid anti-semites. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/92hpnj
Your link shows completely normal use of the word "Jewish".
At the risk of sounding naive, what do the brackets and sunglassses (edit: they're just glasses) mean and how is it anti-semetic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses
No idea on the glasses. Maybe a reference to the stereotypical g-man? i.e. he was trying to say that Jews control the government?
Regardless, the parentheses are pretty straightforward.
No idea on the glasses. Maybe a reference to the stereotypical g-man? i.e. he was trying to say that Jews control the government?
Regardless, the parentheses are pretty straightforward.
I misread the tweet, they said "black-rimmed glasses" rather than "sunglasses".
So it seems to boil down to, "It seems like most of our critics are those upwardly-mobile Jews." Another sad chapter in the descent of WikiLeaks from a journalistic organization that was a reason to hope for humanity into a the Daily Mail for the Kremlin instead of GCHQ.
So it seems to boil down to, "It seems like most of our critics are those upwardly-mobile Jews." Another sad chapter in the descent of WikiLeaks from a journalistic organization that was a reason to hope for humanity into a the Daily Mail for the Kremlin instead of GCHQ.
[deleted]
>Regardless, the parentheses are pretty straightforward.
They really aren't, as the tweets hint they've recently been some sort of an anti-anti-semitism symbol, with lots of jewish people on twitter putting them around their names.
They really aren't, as the tweets hint they've recently been some sort of an anti-anti-semitism symbol, with lots of jewish people on twitter putting them around their names.
[deleted]
It is possible (if not the norm for branded accounts) for multiple people to use a single account.
You think Wikileaks is a 1-person operation?
Wikileaks != the Wikileaks Twitter account. It is perfectly possible for Wikileaks to be multiple people, and also for the Twitter account to be only one.
Sorry, given that the Wikileaks account is posting that Assange has had his internet cut off this conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.
And why is that a bad thing? you can't leak stuff during negotiations it blows everything up.
The FARC deal is now dead as it seems since the referendum has failed but if there was anything in those emails that could have jeopardized the deal it should not have been released.
The FARC deal is now dead as it seems since the referendum has failed but if there was anything in those emails that could have jeopardized the deal it should not have been released.
If the truth blows up your negotiations, you are a cheat.
You don't know how negotiations work do you?
Everyone comes to the table with points that would make the other side walk away, and everyone has their initial redlines.
These change during the negotiations, premature release of information backs one or both parties into a corner in which further negotiations are no longer possible.
This is the real world, not some fairy tale.
Everyone comes to the table with points that would make the other side walk away, and everyone has their initial redlines.
These change during the negotiations, premature release of information backs one or both parties into a corner in which further negotiations are no longer possible.
This is the real world, not some fairy tale.
> This is the real world, not some fairy tale.
Indeed. And in this world now, information asymmetry is greatly reduced. Politicians can live with it.
The fairy tale is you can hide your dirty laundry until you've fleeced your negotiating opponent.
Indeed. And in this world now, information asymmetry is greatly reduced. Politicians can live with it.
The fairy tale is you can hide your dirty laundry until you've fleeced your negotiating opponent.
It's not dirty laundry its negotiations the deal would become public.
Look at how many deals with Iran and N. Korea blew up early own because one side leaked (usually intentionally to tank the negotiations) some information that meant no further negotiations would be possible.
Look at how many deals with Iran and N. Korea blew up early own because one side leaked (usually intentionally to tank the negotiations) some information that meant no further negotiations would be possible.
Your point seems to be that because these people want to play a game using us as pieces, we should accept that they should get what they want. You never really get to why, though. You just leave it there, like a religious belief. Care to expand the reasoning?
Have you ever fought with your loved one? do you tell them everything? do you tell everyone everything all the time?
If so we have a name for that, but you can't really hold a relationship if you act like that.
We don't go and broadcast everything that was said to us in confidence, we don't share every thought we have.
If say there was an email from hilary saying that "The US would back X amount of billions in guaranteed loans to provide funding for infrastructure informer FARC controlled zones" one party now knows exactly how much to ask for, one party now knows a limit, one party now has more power... Or here is another example say on day 2 of the negotiations there would be some preliminary agreement on how many and what type of sentences would be commuted that's just one small point of the negotiation it hasn't been finalized but if leaked it can blow up the entire deal. FARC can say it's too little, the Colombian government/people can say it's too much, and all over something that haven't been finalized or agreed upon, on something that is likely to change 50 times over during the negotiations. You seem to think for some reason that leaking things prematurely isn't using you as pieces, it is you are a puppet of your emotions and feeding you specifically tuned information is effectively playing you like a string.
If say there was an email from hilary saying that "The US would back X amount of billions in guaranteed loans to provide funding for infrastructure informer FARC controlled zones" one party now knows exactly how much to ask for, one party now knows a limit, one party now has more power... Or here is another example say on day 2 of the negotiations there would be some preliminary agreement on how many and what type of sentences would be commuted that's just one small point of the negotiation it hasn't been finalized but if leaked it can blow up the entire deal. FARC can say it's too little, the Colombian government/people can say it's too much, and all over something that haven't been finalized or agreed upon, on something that is likely to change 50 times over during the negotiations. You seem to think for some reason that leaking things prematurely isn't using you as pieces, it is you are a puppet of your emotions and feeding you specifically tuned information is effectively playing you like a string.
So release more information that allows the people to make rational choices. The people are irrational because they are treated as pawns and manipulated with controlled information. If two countries are negotiating in ways that would upset their own citizens, then those countries' leaders should only blame themselves for the way they have conditioned their citizens to behave.
More often than not there isn't more information to release, because that information isn't there yet.
People are irrational because they are irrational.
People are irrational because they are irrational.
People are irrational because they are irrational.
So let's fix that first instead of continuing to manipulate the flow of information; the rest will follow.
So let's fix that first instead of continuing to manipulate the flow of information; the rest will follow.
Right. Replace people with computers perhaps?
Because our few pounds of gray matter will never be rational. Us techies tend to think we are, which is exactly why we're even more prone to act irrational in some situations!
Because our few pounds of gray matter will never be rational. Us techies tend to think we are, which is exactly why we're even more prone to act irrational in some situations!
It's not possible to tell everyone everything all the time. Further, everyone would be so spammed by everyone else, it's likely no one would be able to know what was going on.
It has become (and assuming we are still here in the future, it will become even moreso) easier to broadcast more. The primary reason people don't go around broadcasting everything is because they can't. Most people have been capable of broadcasting very little.
Consider what you are arguing (or at least, appear to be): "Yeah, we fucked you over in the past (and we may do so again in the future) and we didn't want to tell you about it (and tried not to [and will try to not tell you about it in the future]), but just play nice and give us this stuff we want, please?"
I see this argument continuing to be rejected wholesale.
It has become (and assuming we are still here in the future, it will become even moreso) easier to broadcast more. The primary reason people don't go around broadcasting everything is because they can't. Most people have been capable of broadcasting very little.
Consider what you are arguing (or at least, appear to be): "Yeah, we fucked you over in the past (and we may do so again in the future) and we didn't want to tell you about it (and tried not to [and will try to not tell you about it in the future]), but just play nice and give us this stuff we want, please?"
I see this argument continuing to be rejected wholesale.
The condensed version is "There are some issues so contentious that negotiation by committee does not work."
Imagine trying to end WWII if every citizen of every nation in that war were sitting at the negotiating table.
Imagine trying to end WWII if every citizen of every nation in that war were sitting at the negotiating table.
WWII ended with unconditional surrender IIRC.
A good modern example would be the middle east peace process, every time there are negotiations and a deal is on the table it blows up more often than not because of premature and selective release of information.
The selective part doesn't have to be intentionally i.e. in one side only releasing part of the information but simply because the other points were not settled upon yet.
Negotiations are like trying to balance an egg on a point of a needle, if they aren't they are often one sided.
A good modern example would be the middle east peace process, every time there are negotiations and a deal is on the table it blows up more often than not because of premature and selective release of information.
The selective part doesn't have to be intentionally i.e. in one side only releasing part of the information but simply because the other points were not settled upon yet.
Negotiations are like trying to balance an egg on a point of a needle, if they aren't they are often one sided.
If it was so important, why the casual nature of infosec here then? Email is not secure. The real reason here is the Clinton/Goldman leaks and everyone knows it.
Sure, next time you go to buy a car or a house just show them your bank account balance/mortgage values
That's pretty much what you do to buy a mortgage. Err, "negotiate" a mortgage.
A mortgage is generally not a negotiation because most people have no leverage against the bank. When the options are get a mortgage or you don't get a house, the bank gets to dictate the terms. A millionaire who wants to finance a house that they could buy outright for reasons has leverage. They can and do have actual negotiations.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Mark-Zuckerberg-s-mor...
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Mark-Zuckerberg-s-mor...
I have to say I have a fairly decent moral objection to this:
"When you can borrow at a rate below inflation, you're borrowing for free," McBride said. "This is the concept of using other people's money and it preserves financial flexibility for the borrower."
If you're borrowing at under market rates, we, the market are effectively subsidizing you. Does Zuckerberg need subsidies in order to have a mortgage?
"When you can borrow at a rate below inflation, you're borrowing for free," McBride said. "This is the concept of using other people's money and it preserves financial flexibility for the borrower."
If you're borrowing at under market rates, we, the market are effectively subsidizing you. Does Zuckerberg need subsidies in order to have a mortgage?
Almost guaranteed that this was not a subsidy. Even for the extremely wealthy, banks are not in the business of giving away money for nothing.
The mortgage was likely only one piece of the deal negotiated. It costs the bank nothing to write an at-cost mortgage, but gives Zuckerberg value though additional liquidity. Items that cost nothing yet provide value to the other side are excellent things to throw on the table during negotiations to help seal the deal. One example: The bank may have the adjustable rate tied to the balance in an asset management account -- if Zuckerberg takes his money elsewhere, the mortgage also becomes profitable.
The mortgage was likely only one piece of the deal negotiated. It costs the bank nothing to write an at-cost mortgage, but gives Zuckerberg value though additional liquidity. Items that cost nothing yet provide value to the other side are excellent things to throw on the table during negotiations to help seal the deal. One example: The bank may have the adjustable rate tied to the balance in an asset management account -- if Zuckerberg takes his money elsewhere, the mortgage also becomes profitable.
A mortgage yes, but not the house
Right, I was pointing out that there are negotiations where one side expects the other to lay their cards on the table and has the leverage/position to make it happen (underwriters don't care a whole lot about individual mortgages).
Commodities have prices set by supply and demand. We know how much a publicly traded company makes due to quarterly reports, this has no effect on its price buying a barrel of oil. Nor did my income play a role in buying my house. What I make has nothing to do with what my house is worth. Unless you are a cheat.
Inconveniently, that's not actually how economics works. Values aren't set in stone; they're negotiations between seller and buyer, where information asymmetry moves the price point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
How exactly does that work for commodities? What prevents the buyer from moving on to a seller that simply refues to engage in that practice?
For commodities, in general, buyers do move on to a seller who doesn't price-negotiate---commodities are interchangeable enough that a buyer has the liberty of saying no because there are alternatives the buyer values equivalently. Until sellers find a way to incentivize price negotiation again by making the buyer believe they are getting a special deal that applies only to them or people like them.
Stores in the US generally don't price negotiate at the register, but they do have coupons that discriminate shoppers into loyal shoppers (those that take the time to track down the coupons or join the store's particular flavor of loyalty program) and ordinary shoppers.
Stores in the US generally don't price negotiate at the register, but they do have coupons that discriminate shoppers into loyal shoppers (those that take the time to track down the coupons or join the store's particular flavor of loyalty program) and ordinary shoppers.
>For commodities, in general, buyers do move on to a seller who doesn't price-negotiate---commodities are interchangeable enough that a buyer has the liberty of saying no because there are alternatives the buyer values equivalently.
So how does your income play into house prices? We had many houses on offer when I bought last year. We spoke with experts and offered slightly below market. If they countered above market, we would have walked.
> Stores in the US generally don't price negotiate at the register, but they do have coupons that discriminate shoppers into loyal shoppers (those that take the time to track down the coupons or join the store's particular flavor of loyalty program) and ordinary shoppers.
Isn't that more to do with advertising than income discrimination? I know wealthy housewives who have the time to clip coupons, my working class wife and I do not.
I'm not denying these practices exist, but its always sleazy businesses that engage in them and most consumers end up moving on once they catch wise. Grocery store vs. Amazon for example.
So how does your income play into house prices? We had many houses on offer when I bought last year. We spoke with experts and offered slightly below market. If they countered above market, we would have walked.
> Stores in the US generally don't price negotiate at the register, but they do have coupons that discriminate shoppers into loyal shoppers (those that take the time to track down the coupons or join the store's particular flavor of loyalty program) and ordinary shoppers.
Isn't that more to do with advertising than income discrimination? I know wealthy housewives who have the time to clip coupons, my working class wife and I do not.
I'm not denying these practices exist, but its always sleazy businesses that engage in them and most consumers end up moving on once they catch wise. Grocery store vs. Amazon for example.
> So how does your income play into house prices? We had many houses on offer when I bought last year. We spoke with experts and offered slightly below market. If they countered above market, we would have walked.
If the seller knows you are making a million a year, it's a fact that balances against their desire to sell. While their desire to sell could be greater and they might capitulate anyway, they may very well hold faster to their asking price because they know you're able to afford it.
If Warren Buffet makes an offer on my house and tries to negotiate me down on price, I'll hold out and even sell to someone else who also negotiates down on price, but isn't him; all things being equal, I'd rather feel like I helped someone out than was taken advantage of. This is among the reasons people with wealth will often use intermediaries to close deals.
> I'm not denying these practices exist, but its always sleazy businesses that engage in them and most consumers end up moving on once they catch wise. Grocery store vs. Amazon for example.
Amazon owns woot.com, which allows them precisely to engage in price discrimination and the benefits of time-scoped deals while simultaneously offering a more "supercenter" experience on their main site. They capture both sides of the market---people who like to feel they are getting a special deal, and people who prefer the simplicity of one price.
(Besides, since Amazon brokers trades between buyers and sellers who are selling at different prices, they don't even practice "one product, one price" on their main site, really. And they have Amazon Prime, which is a loyalty program).
If the seller knows you are making a million a year, it's a fact that balances against their desire to sell. While their desire to sell could be greater and they might capitulate anyway, they may very well hold faster to their asking price because they know you're able to afford it.
If Warren Buffet makes an offer on my house and tries to negotiate me down on price, I'll hold out and even sell to someone else who also negotiates down on price, but isn't him; all things being equal, I'd rather feel like I helped someone out than was taken advantage of. This is among the reasons people with wealth will often use intermediaries to close deals.
> I'm not denying these practices exist, but its always sleazy businesses that engage in them and most consumers end up moving on once they catch wise. Grocery store vs. Amazon for example.
Amazon owns woot.com, which allows them precisely to engage in price discrimination and the benefits of time-scoped deals while simultaneously offering a more "supercenter" experience on their main site. They capture both sides of the market---people who like to feel they are getting a special deal, and people who prefer the simplicity of one price.
(Besides, since Amazon brokers trades between buyers and sellers who are selling at different prices, they don't even practice "one product, one price" on their main site, really. And they have Amazon Prime, which is a loyalty program).
Are you opposed to the recent Cuba/US negotiations that certainly would have failed if they were conducted in the open?
If that was true, how would Clinton docs affect FARC negotiations? Is Clinton habitually buying cocaine from Colombia or what would be the reason?
I would understand if Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs until she has been elected or until after the next presidential debate. That would make a lot of sense. But this FARC <--> Clinton doc connection doesn't.
I would understand if Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs until she has been elected or until after the next presidential debate. That would make a lot of sense. But this FARC <--> Clinton doc connection doesn't.
You're misunderstanding, the claim is that it was 'during', not 'because'. Kerry was there as part of the negotiations, and supposedly had a private meeting where he made the request. Not that I particularly believe this, just clarifying for you!
The state department probably asks ecuador to turn over assange every single time they talk to someone in ecuador.
Whelp, he was being used. And I'm sure he knows that, but now that EC has other things on their minds more important than being a thorn to American politics, it's back to Realpolitik and Assange releasing info which may further embarrass their horse in the American political race would counter their political cause, so it becomes a casualty.
However, we only have one source for the claim of multiple sources. When Wikileaks dumps a bunch of documents, I trust that those are real documents. But I'm not sure that I trust Wikileaks when they release publicity for themselves.
That sounds like state sponsored censorship.
Assange and wikileaks make it really hard to support their cause.
I don't really get their strategy. Wouldn't these leaks be much more damaging to Clinton if WikiLeaks at least appeared to be unbiased? It's not like they need to be vocal, there are armies of people poring over every single release. Why not just let the documents speak for themselves?
Wikileaks can't appear to be unbiased to those who will perceive them as biased as a result of releasing info that may hurt Hillary Clinton.
What would they have to do to appear unbiased but still be able to release information damaging to the DNC and Clintons?
What would they have to do to appear unbiased but still be able to release information damaging to the DNC and Clintons?
Release documents, and only publicly comment on their own releases and their own business. Don't argue with people on Twitter, don't comment on Clinton scandals that have nothing to do with their leaks, don't speculate about the "ruling class" without evidence, don't offer a reward for information on Seth Rich with only "wink wink" as a reason, don't make vaguely anti-Semitic comments for no reason and then delete them, etc.
If they only used Twitter to make announcements and highlight interesting documents, I think they would be orders of magnitude more trustworthy. Let the documents speak for themselves, and let other people write the commentary.
If they only used Twitter to make announcements and highlight interesting documents, I think they would be orders of magnitude more trustworthy. Let the documents speak for themselves, and let other people write the commentary.
They could definitely appear less biased if they reigned in their Twitter account a bit.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787079640661786624
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787079640661786624
The Panama Papers journalists managed a fair balance. They vetted and presented the papers while defending their sources' integrity and anonymity. Interpretation was left to third parties.
The leak won't make those who support Clinton change their mind. Those hate her will feel vindicated. Those undecided will stay skeptical. In other words, it has done no harm.
If they are truly unbiased, they should release all the information they've got at once; or hold onto it until after the election; or also release other information they've got about Trump and other countries. Let the readers decide.
The fact that they release the emails in daily batches clearly shows they have an agenda and want to influence the outcome of the election. Which is fine, if that's what they aim for.
If they are truly unbiased, they should release all the information they've got at once; or hold onto it until after the election; or also release other information they've got about Trump and other countries. Let the readers decide.
The fact that they release the emails in daily batches clearly shows they have an agenda and want to influence the outcome of the election. Which is fine, if that's what they aim for.
Assange is so untrustworthy.
His internet was cut, but they have landlines. Is it really Ecuador's obligation to provide him uninterrupted internet access? What else are they obligated to provide? They're giving him a place to hang his hat for free. We have no idea what kind of house guest this guy is. If WikiLeaks requires Assange to have internet access to function, it speaks poorly of how organized they are.
How does this affect Assange's supposed "dead-man" switch? Wasn't the idea that he has the push the switch every 24 hours? Wouldn't that require internet access?
Does he even has a dead-man switch? It is quite contradictory to his own philosophy or releasing everything without any consideration or censorship.
If he is holding something excessively damning it's quite problematic for for his supports and him, eventually that information would start losing it's value and it will not be a dead-man switch anymore.
This is also a problem because it forces him to dig more and more dirt that can be used as a dead-man switch rather than releasing the information.
If he is holding something excessively damning it's quite problematic for for his supports and him, eventually that information would start losing it's value and it will not be a dead-man switch anymore.
This is also a problem because it forces him to dig more and more dirt that can be used as a dead-man switch rather than releasing the information.
> It is quite contradictory to his own philosophy or releasing everything without any consideration or censorship.
You mean the philosophy that has him releasing material with carefully timed consideration to maximize attention to his own pet cause?
You mean the philosophy that has him releasing material with carefully timed consideration to maximize attention to his own pet cause?
Carefully timed means biggest impact, which means Wikileaks stays high profile, gets more funding, etc. There's nothing wrong with being a bit self serving if that results in an overall higher score on whatever your final criteria are.
Fine, but then one can't claim his philosophy has anything to do with "releasing everything without any consideration or censorship." He is de-facto censoring/holding back knowledge that he possesses, with a specific agenda in mind.
Yeah, like someone submitting stories at a certain time of day to HN instead of just when the idea hits them... oh sure, of course they would say "I thought you might find this interesting, that's all I'm doing here", but I'll feel secure in the knowledge that you'll show up to call out their "specific agenda".
I know he has his agendas, possibly I should have used "his self proclaimed philosophy" instead.
He recently said they have info on Trump but won't release it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345...
This is a bit misleading. The article you point to says that yes they do have information on Trump that they won't be releasing, but it's nothing compared to the crazy stuff that comes out of Trump's own mouth on a daily basis.
He then says that they would like to get hold of internal documents from the Trump campaign and calls publicly for people to send in things to be published from the Trump campaign.
He then says that they would like to get hold of internal documents from the Trump campaign and calls publicly for people to send in things to be published from the Trump campaign.
I don't think him providing a reason for not releasing the documents makes what I said misleading. You find his explanation to be reasonable? I do not. Sometimes he is an editor and sometimes not. Why is he even comparing these things to what comes out of his mouth? Which side of his mouth? As if there aren't questions about what Trump may actually believe or want or do. Personally when I hear what Trump says I think it only provides more reasons to wonder what he may actually say when not performing in public.
I would tend to believe him when he says that the info they have isn't really interesting, considering he freely offered up the fact that they in fact did have some information on him at all.
If there was someone else out there claiming they sent wikileaks material of signifance that was not being published then that would be different.
If there was someone else out there claiming they sent wikileaks material of signifance that was not being published then that would be different.
I suspect they've disabled it, or somehow changed it to a more manual process, e.g. phone call or physical meeting.
I don't get it. What is the status of mr. Assange? Has he communicated with anyone in the past 24 hrs. If so what did he say?
Seems like they're being purposely vague.
Seems like it. Just an hour or so after the "Assange's internet was cut" tweet, they tweeted for donations even though people were asking for updates: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787915227924992000
Yeah, exactly. The guy is in London and can receive visitors. All they need to do is walk into the embassy and hand him a phone to log into twitter with, and we could clear this all up with a straightforward firsthand report.
Instead, we're getting hints. That's called a "stunt", folks.
Instead, we're getting hints. That's called a "stunt", folks.
If this is just a matter of mr. Assange paying for his own 3G connection then indeed this is a stunt.
But why would WikiLeaks sacrifice their reputation like that?
But why would WikiLeaks sacrifice their reputation like that?
That assumes that (i) Wikileaks and Assange in particular has a strong reputation for telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and definitely not prioritising drawing as much attention as possible to possibly damaging material and commentary about Hillary Clinton in the run up to the election over the principle of being whistleblowers whose only agenda was the truth (ii) good evidence of it being a stunt could ever be produced if it was a stunt and (iii) people inclined to generally believe Assange's take on events are particularly likely to cry foul over even pretty good evidence this might be a stunt.
I mean, speaking of reputation damage, hadn't Assange finally managed to bargain an arrangement in which he could face potentially very damaging questioning, but under the auspices of a state actively hostile to the principle of prosecuting him, using their prosecutor, questions prepared in advance and without any prospect of Sweden actually arresting him afterwards? Wasn't that supposed to have been yesterday? Wasn't the announced reason that despite having scheduled the interview exactly the way his legal team and his protectors at the Ecuadorean embassy wanted it, well in advance, his legal team had unfortunately concluded they would be unavailable on that day? Have many people stopped believing that Assange is actually really, really willing to talk to Swedish prosecutors that just keep putting all these unfair obstructions in his way as a result?
Why would a denial or two from Ecuador or even a time-stamped email from Assange at 6pm on Saturday night talking about how much fun he was having on the internet at that moment change anyone's view of Wikileaks?
I mean, speaking of reputation damage, hadn't Assange finally managed to bargain an arrangement in which he could face potentially very damaging questioning, but under the auspices of a state actively hostile to the principle of prosecuting him, using their prosecutor, questions prepared in advance and without any prospect of Sweden actually arresting him afterwards? Wasn't that supposed to have been yesterday? Wasn't the announced reason that despite having scheduled the interview exactly the way his legal team and his protectors at the Ecuadorean embassy wanted it, well in advance, his legal team had unfortunately concluded they would be unavailable on that day? Have many people stopped believing that Assange is actually really, really willing to talk to Swedish prosecutors that just keep putting all these unfair obstructions in his way as a result?
Why would a denial or two from Ecuador or even a time-stamped email from Assange at 6pm on Saturday night talking about how much fun he was having on the internet at that moment change anyone's view of Wikileaks?
They were literally selling anti-(Bill)-Clinton T-shirts with a penis joke last week. Their reputation is long since trash.
Fundamentally Assange is a partisan hack at this point who's using what stored credibility he has from his activist days to make a play at influencing a foreign election.
Fundamentally Assange is a partisan hack at this point who's using what stored credibility he has from his activist days to make a play at influencing a foreign election.
You know when a guest just won't catch a hint and leave? "Oops the internet went out again".
Assange has been couch-surfing for 6 years now and by all accounts he's not a particularly good house guest. Nobody likes that arrogant asshole who gets drunk and smashes up your furniture. [1]
Sure, he doesn't have anywhere to go, but at the end of the day that's not Ecuador's problem. He's thrown himself on their good graces and he's not being very gracious about it. Indeed he's even working with Russia to stir up trouble - not just publishing Russian-sourced material, but working directly with Russia, to the extent that RT was linking into Wikileaks content even before Wikileaks announced they were up [2]
I imagine the police reports filed earlier this month alleging that he was trying to groom an 8-year-old for sex online aren't helping matters either [3]. That's very possibly the direct catalyst for cutting off his internet at this juncture.
On a personal level I do feel bad for Assange. It can't be easy to be in de-facto house arrest in someone else's house for 6 years, so it's not surprising that he's succumbing to some potential alcohol-related issues and lashing out on a personal and professional basis.
[1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/mr-white-and-mr-blue
> A security guard was on duty at around 8:30pm on 6 September, when Assange was in the embassy with two associates. Around this time, the guard discovered that Assange had made his way into the embassy’s secure control room – a room strictly off-limits to him – and started tampering with the security equipment. This led to a scuffle between Assange and the guard that caused damage to the embassy’s equipment.
> The report then details conflicting accounts of what happened. According to the security guard’s account, Assange was asked to stop messing with the embassy’s systems and to leave the secure room, which he initially refused to do. The guard alleges that Assange then punched over a computer monitor before grabbing him by the shirt. This led, according to the guard, to an altercation for a number of minutes that spilled out into the corridor.
> Assange’s account lays the blame on the security guard, who he claimed had accosted him.
> A filmmaker who was present for the incident, the report notes, told embassy staff he did not see the beginning of the scuffle, but that Assange was “out of control” and very upset, and clearly wanted to be verbally offensive and to provoke a reaction.
> However, just a few months later a separate report notes a similar incident of seemingly erratic behaviour from the WikiLeaks chief shortly before dawn on 4 January 2013. The report painstakingly notes Assange’s movements from minute to minute – further evidence of how closely the Ecuadorians monitored “Mr Guest” – reporting that he seemed to wake at 6:05 that morning. Then, just five minutes later, the security guard heard a loud crash from Assange’s room.
> The report painstakingly notes Assange’s movements from minute to minute – further evidence of how closely the Ecuadorians monitored “Mr Guest” – reporting that he seemed to wake at 6:05 that morning. Then, just five minutes later, the security guard heard a loud crash from Assange’s room.
> Assange came to the door, assuring the on-duty guard that everything was fine, but (according to the guard’s account) seeming to try to block his view of the room’s interior. A few minutes later, Assange left the room carrying his laptop into a nearby room designated as his bathroom, where he remained for a period of hours.
> During this time, the memo continues, the guard was able to see inside Assange’s bedroom, where a large, smashed bookshelf was strewn across the room. The guard took photographs of the room’s condition.
> Assange later told embassy staff that the bookshelf had fallen over of its own accord, according to the same memo, but this seemingly did little to assuage their concerns about the wellbeing of Assange or those around him. As before, the incident was passed up the embassy’s chain of command – reference is made to a daily report on his activities – including, once again, “Mr White” and “Mr Blue”.
> The report notes with concern a regular comment in “internal daily reports” on Assange recording his tendency to “shout and talk incoherently” at night, attributed to night terrors. It then goes on to note: “This episode is nothing more than the result of the stress that Mr Assange could be feeling as a result of his isolation.
> The report continues in quite a critical manner as to Assange’s intrinsic “nature”, independent of his stressful situation, stating that his “evident anger” and “feelings of superiority” could cause stress to those around him — “especially the personnel who work in the embassy, mainly women”.
> The report contains multiple recommendations to improve the situation, including a proposal from “Mr Blue” for regular assessments of Assange’s physical and mental health, regular meetings with Assange’s confidantes to assess his demeanour and state of mind, and efforts to prevent Assange becoming isolated.
> The report also notes a need to “control access to alcohol”.
[2] http://usuncut.news/2016/10/13/breaking-evidence-russia-is-b...
> RT America tweeted with a link to the documents at 6:09 AM. However, WikiLeaks had not yet announced the release. They didn’t do so, in fact, until 23 minutes later.
> How did RT America know that the emails were being released and how did they know where to find the documents? It’s looking more and more like Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are working directly with the Russian government to destroy the Democratic presidential candidate.
[3] http://www.prweb.com/releases/united-nations-report/julian-a...
> Toddandclare became a participant in the UN Global Compact program in May 2016. This required them to release certain company records to the UN, including details of their legal interactions with Assange — which by then included a report from the Royal Bahamas Police about an investigation into Assange. (Assange is no longer involved in KATIA.)
> On September 28 this year a Canadian family holidaying in the Bahamas reported to the police that their 8-year-old daughter was “sexually molested online” by Assange on Toddandclare.com, including propositioning her “to perform oral and anal sex acts.” She was presumably accessing the site through her 22-year-old sister’s account. Whether these chats were recorded or not isn’t clear but the family claims they identified Assange.
Assange has been couch-surfing for 6 years now and by all accounts he's not a particularly good house guest. Nobody likes that arrogant asshole who gets drunk and smashes up your furniture. [1]
Sure, he doesn't have anywhere to go, but at the end of the day that's not Ecuador's problem. He's thrown himself on their good graces and he's not being very gracious about it. Indeed he's even working with Russia to stir up trouble - not just publishing Russian-sourced material, but working directly with Russia, to the extent that RT was linking into Wikileaks content even before Wikileaks announced they were up [2]
I imagine the police reports filed earlier this month alleging that he was trying to groom an 8-year-old for sex online aren't helping matters either [3]. That's very possibly the direct catalyst for cutting off his internet at this juncture.
On a personal level I do feel bad for Assange. It can't be easy to be in de-facto house arrest in someone else's house for 6 years, so it's not surprising that he's succumbing to some potential alcohol-related issues and lashing out on a personal and professional basis.
[1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/mr-white-and-mr-blue
> A security guard was on duty at around 8:30pm on 6 September, when Assange was in the embassy with two associates. Around this time, the guard discovered that Assange had made his way into the embassy’s secure control room – a room strictly off-limits to him – and started tampering with the security equipment. This led to a scuffle between Assange and the guard that caused damage to the embassy’s equipment.
> The report then details conflicting accounts of what happened. According to the security guard’s account, Assange was asked to stop messing with the embassy’s systems and to leave the secure room, which he initially refused to do. The guard alleges that Assange then punched over a computer monitor before grabbing him by the shirt. This led, according to the guard, to an altercation for a number of minutes that spilled out into the corridor.
> Assange’s account lays the blame on the security guard, who he claimed had accosted him.
> A filmmaker who was present for the incident, the report notes, told embassy staff he did not see the beginning of the scuffle, but that Assange was “out of control” and very upset, and clearly wanted to be verbally offensive and to provoke a reaction.
> However, just a few months later a separate report notes a similar incident of seemingly erratic behaviour from the WikiLeaks chief shortly before dawn on 4 January 2013. The report painstakingly notes Assange’s movements from minute to minute – further evidence of how closely the Ecuadorians monitored “Mr Guest” – reporting that he seemed to wake at 6:05 that morning. Then, just five minutes later, the security guard heard a loud crash from Assange’s room.
> The report painstakingly notes Assange’s movements from minute to minute – further evidence of how closely the Ecuadorians monitored “Mr Guest” – reporting that he seemed to wake at 6:05 that morning. Then, just five minutes later, the security guard heard a loud crash from Assange’s room.
> Assange came to the door, assuring the on-duty guard that everything was fine, but (according to the guard’s account) seeming to try to block his view of the room’s interior. A few minutes later, Assange left the room carrying his laptop into a nearby room designated as his bathroom, where he remained for a period of hours.
> During this time, the memo continues, the guard was able to see inside Assange’s bedroom, where a large, smashed bookshelf was strewn across the room. The guard took photographs of the room’s condition.
> Assange later told embassy staff that the bookshelf had fallen over of its own accord, according to the same memo, but this seemingly did little to assuage their concerns about the wellbeing of Assange or those around him. As before, the incident was passed up the embassy’s chain of command – reference is made to a daily report on his activities – including, once again, “Mr White” and “Mr Blue”.
> The report notes with concern a regular comment in “internal daily reports” on Assange recording his tendency to “shout and talk incoherently” at night, attributed to night terrors. It then goes on to note: “This episode is nothing more than the result of the stress that Mr Assange could be feeling as a result of his isolation.
> The report continues in quite a critical manner as to Assange’s intrinsic “nature”, independent of his stressful situation, stating that his “evident anger” and “feelings of superiority” could cause stress to those around him — “especially the personnel who work in the embassy, mainly women”.
> The report contains multiple recommendations to improve the situation, including a proposal from “Mr Blue” for regular assessments of Assange’s physical and mental health, regular meetings with Assange’s confidantes to assess his demeanour and state of mind, and efforts to prevent Assange becoming isolated.
> The report also notes a need to “control access to alcohol”.
[2] http://usuncut.news/2016/10/13/breaking-evidence-russia-is-b...
> RT America tweeted with a link to the documents at 6:09 AM. However, WikiLeaks had not yet announced the release. They didn’t do so, in fact, until 23 minutes later.
> How did RT America know that the emails were being released and how did they know where to find the documents? It’s looking more and more like Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are working directly with the Russian government to destroy the Democratic presidential candidate.
[3] http://www.prweb.com/releases/united-nations-report/julian-a...
> Toddandclare became a participant in the UN Global Compact program in May 2016. This required them to release certain company records to the UN, including details of their legal interactions with Assange — which by then included a report from the Royal Bahamas Police about an investigation into Assange. (Assange is no longer involved in KATIA.)
> On September 28 this year a Canadian family holidaying in the Bahamas reported to the police that their 8-year-old daughter was “sexually molested online” by Assange on Toddandclare.com, including propositioning her “to perform oral and anal sex acts.” She was presumably accessing the site through her 22-year-old sister’s account. Whether these chats were recorded or not isn’t clear but the family claims they identified Assange.
PRWeb is an unfiltered wire service, anyone can put any old bullshit on there. That article links to googlecaches rather than a reputable source. I'd be careful of libelling people if I were you.
It's a Google Cache because Todd & Claire were subsequently delisted from the UN Global Compact program [1] and their report was removed.
I can't speak to their particular reputation or the veracity of the conduct in the police report, but they seem to be standing by their police report. You can view a copy of it on their official Facebook site account [2] as well as a followup on their website [3]. Unprofessional and goes off the rails IMO but they're sticking to their story.
As for my own post, I'm not making claims on my own and I have no particular reason to regard Todd & Claire's claims as factually untrue. Not proven either, but my posts certainly don't rise to the factual standard of libel ("knowing/reckless disregard of the truth"/"provable malice").
[1] https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/participants/8376...
[2] https://www.facebook.com/toddandclare/posts/1191392577583146
[3] https://www.toddandclare.com/datinglife/online-dating/united...
I can't speak to their particular reputation or the veracity of the conduct in the police report, but they seem to be standing by their police report. You can view a copy of it on their official Facebook site account [2] as well as a followup on their website [3]. Unprofessional and goes off the rails IMO but they're sticking to their story.
As for my own post, I'm not making claims on my own and I have no particular reason to regard Todd & Claire's claims as factually untrue. Not proven either, but my posts certainly don't rise to the factual standard of libel ("knowing/reckless disregard of the truth"/"provable malice").
[1] https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/participants/8376...
[2] https://www.facebook.com/toddandclare/posts/1191392577583146
[3] https://www.toddandclare.com/datinglife/online-dating/united...
I'm not surprised they were kicked out. The UN Global Compact is a PR thing for businesses that lets them announce their commitment to the Global Compact principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment, and anti-corruption. It does not make them a "United Nations member" or give them the ability to "formally asked the United Nations" to do anything, let alone "conduct an urgent legal review of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s decision on Julian Assange". Using it to pretend something they've written is a "UN report" is an astounding abuse of the program. Presumably they abused the system that lets them upload an annual statement of support and communication on progress to do so, then got banned when someone actually looked at their upload.
"I have no particular reason to regard Todd & Claire's claims as factually untrue. Not proven either" - Wow!
I'm sure your temperament would be much better if it was you revealing shady government dealings and having your life constantly in danger.
How important is Assange, himself, to WikiLeaks? If he's critical to its operating capabilities, why?
I believe his functional importance is in keeping dead man switches from triggering, the site is his insurance policy. He also gives an interesting public face to the website, given he is permanently embroiled in scandal. Arguably Assange's keeping wikileaks in the public eye is more important than his technical or mechanical function
> I believe his functional importance is in keeping dead man switches from triggering, the site is his insurance policy.
This serves Assange more then it serves WikiLeaks.
This serves Assange more then it serves WikiLeaks.
Well, he's kind of egotistical, something even his supporters know well. He tends to be a bottleneck for the organization's operations.
AFAIK he's the figurehead that takes all the heat so that others can get work done in the background.
What's your view on the c
What criticism? There hasn't been a single case where information leaked by his organisation has been proven false. So he leaks the truth, I've got no issue with that.
You like being ruled by corrupt criminals?
You like being ruled by corrupt criminals?
Right, he leaked a bunch of random Turkish peoples email's just because they used the word "smile". That's the truth, and none of us should have any problem with it. Just like I'm sure you're fine with posting all of your emails on some site so we can all read them to see what you've been up to.
Whoa, WikiLeaks doesn't have control over the quality/veracity of the information leaked to it. If an email is added by the people who submit the leak, there's simply no way to verify that.
They're not journalists, they've never claimed to be.
They're not journalists, they've never claimed to be.
That's a strange reasoning. Just because they haven't leaked any false information there can't be any criticism? Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.
Okay, so it is wrong to speak the truth?
All the critics seem to have is claiming a Russia connection without proof. But even if that was indeed true, Russia speaking the truth is bad for humanity?
Thanks, I'll stick to the narrative of the guy that provably tells the truth and actually has to risk his life for it like once people resisting the Soviet and Nazi regime had to.
All the critics seem to have is claiming a Russia connection without proof. But even if that was indeed true, Russia speaking the truth is bad for humanity?
Thanks, I'll stick to the narrative of the guy that provably tells the truth and actually has to risk his life for it like once people resisting the Soviet and Nazi regime had to.
There's definitely evidence that heavily implicates Russia.
But for someone like you, I don't think any evidence will update or change your opinion. For some reason you've equated WikiLeaks and Russia, and don't have a solid grasp on how WikiLeaks actually works (anonymous source dumps data to WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks releases that data without any contact from the source whatsoever).
But for someone like you, I don't think any evidence will update or change your opinion. For some reason you've equated WikiLeaks and Russia, and don't have a solid grasp on how WikiLeaks actually works (anonymous source dumps data to WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks releases that data without any contact from the source whatsoever).
> There's definitely evidence that heavily implicates Russia.
No one has shown any evidence. The US government just claims that Russia did this just as it claimed that Iraq had WMD's. Please show us the evidence that you have found.
No one has shown any evidence. The US government just claims that Russia did this just as it claimed that Iraq had WMD's. Please show us the evidence that you have found.
How hard is it to get a cell phone with tethering? C'mon, this can't really be a big deal.
I'm sure the US Govt would love to give him a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 to use.
But seriously, if you were him, how confident would you be that the phone wasn't tampered with, no matter who you received it from? How could Assange trust anyone at this point? I'd imagine he would be quite paranoid given what he deals with and probably more so from the period of confinement.
But seriously, if you were him, how confident would you be that the phone wasn't tampered with, no matter who you received it from? How could Assange trust anyone at this point? I'd imagine he would be quite paranoid given what he deals with and probably more so from the period of confinement.
During the initial discussion yesterday, when it was just a vague "state party" to blame that everyone assumed meant the US and UK were isolating the embassy, a lot of people were talking about jamming cell signals. There was supposedly even an account from someone who visited the embassy and immediately lost all connectivity when they went inside.
It's kind of amazing to see what people come up with in the absence of information.
It's kind of amazing to see what people come up with in the absence of information.
No difficulty whatsoever
When you're stuck in an embassy and surrounded by people you can't trust, and you're a de-facto enemy of the state? I'm sure a lot harder than you think.
No 'intrinsic' difficulty, that's an extrinsic difficulty.
Assange is still living and being protected there, right?
This is the important support.
This is the important support.
WikiLeaks is tweeting that US media will soon run with the story that Assange is a pedophile and took $1 million dollars from Russia.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788413380843503616
These people running the US government must be complete morons to even consider running this story. (yes: the US media is controlled by the US government, I have no doubt about it)
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788413380843503616
These people running the US government must be complete morons to even consider running this story. (yes: the US media is controlled by the US government, I have no doubt about it)
Unless the story is true, of course.
Unless there is proof that it is again a lie:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788465568722612225
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788465568722612225
I am troubled by how the internet has enabled us to gossip on a global scale.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12737178 - someone pointed out I actually did not know the meaning of the word "reactionary", which was my original word choice.