undefined | Better HN

0 pointsheadsoup3y ago0 comments

I think that's why people need to look past the character and heresays and look at the facts and processes.

Ignore Assange's character, make him an anonymous person instead and think "is the process X person has gone through for Y actions reasonable/legal/supportable?"

Should whistleblowers be supported or vilified?

0 comments

kspacewalk23y ago

Ignore Assange's character, focus on leaks of dubious, probably state actor origin, precisely timed in their release. Focus on which state propaganda network hosted his show, whom he met with in the embassy, etc.

headsoupOP3y ago

Got non-circumstantial evidence for that? I mean there certainly should be some for the seriousness of his pursuit.

I don't like the guy, but I also don't like arguments based on political narratives.

Is the evidence Assange released factual?

vntok3y ago

If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves. Even if what you do leak is factually true.

1 more reply

mhh__3y ago

The Nazis spent a lot of time acquiring factual information about the Katyn massacre, it's worth knowing the motives.

Assange has certainly played with outright lies e.g. Seth Rich.

Most of WikiLeaks output as far as I'm aware is mostly truthful to what was given to them, with the caveat that they are telling a story (e.g. bellingcat have no issues finding dirt on Russians, WikiLeaks don't).

They are also very happy to cause collateral damage of their own, IIRC they're very happy to leak personal details & CC numbers of people associated with those they dislike (iirc it was democratic donors in some US state, the data was leaked unredacted).

pydry3y ago

If the USA were the source of a leaked Russian war crime would that discredit them?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse