WikiLeaks Has Officially Lost the Moral High Ground

To better understand Assange’s recent intervention in the U.S. election, it helps to look more closely at a sort of manifesto he wrote as he was creating WikiLeaks. The same month that WikiLeaks.org went live, in December of 2006, Assange posted an essay on his blog, “Conspiracy as Governance,” in which he explained his theory that authoritarian regimes — and western political parties — maintain power by conspiring to keep the public in the dark, through “collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population.” In order for the people to regain control of the political system, Assange argued, it is necessary to find ways of “throttling the conspiracy,” like disrupting the ability of the conspirators to communicate secretly...

...Turkish scholar Zeynep Tufekci explained in the Huffington Post, a trove of Turkish-language emails WikiLeaks released last month, inaccurately presented as private messages from members of Turkey’s ruling party, the AKP, also included little of public interest but did reveal the private information of ordinary citizens. To make matters worse, the WikiLeaks Twitter feed also shared a link to another cache of hacked Turkish documents that included home addresses or phone numbers for every female voter in 79 of Turkey’s 81 provinces...

WikiLeaks also suggested, wrongly, that Tufekci is an “apologist” for Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan — a leader she has, in fact, frequently criticized for his opposition to internet freedom...

The generally hostile tone of the WikiLeaks Twitter feed in response to even well-intentioned efforts to fact-check the group’s work has also severely hampered the project’s ability to use crowd-sourcing to properly annotate and vet the documents it posts. (I know this from first-hand experience, having been denounced by @wikileaks last month for pointing to a factual error in one of the group’s tweets about a DNC email.)...

What if, as the cybersecurity consultant Matt Tait asked last month in relation to the DNC emails, a source — like, say, a hacker working for a Russian intelligence agency — provided WikiLeaks with a cache of documents that was tampered with in order to smear a political candidate?

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-point/
 
Aww poor Christie. Mad they are attacking her queen. Wikileaks was the SHIT to liberals when it was leaking NSA/GWB stuff.

NOW ITS THE DEVIL! Don't read it kids. They are showing what Hitlery really is! It's bad for you, don't read it!

It was never the SHIT to me. And it shouldn't be to any person with two brain cells to rub together.

Big Brother is watching you, Irish.
 
There should be questioning. Cons have been pushing the CT that Hillary wears diapers, supposedly gleaned from Wikileaks, yet nobody has ever shown the actual information. As I said before, I searched Wikileaks for it and came up empty. So if this is false, what else is?
I never saw that on Wiki -but there are a LOT of dumps..stuff isn't "gleaned"from Wiki. That's making stuff up.
The relevant data on this campaign of hers is shocking enough..She finds everyone deplorable who isn't a hillbot

There is so much stuff,like her Emails,and the press won't cover anything in context.
It's easier to cover Trumps latest junk noise - not that that doesnt need to get coverage,but the deeper stuff needs examination too.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Other_activities



Restructuring[edit]
Some sympathisers were unhappy[citation needed] when WikiLeaks ended a community-based wiki format in favour of a more centralised organisation. The "about" page originally read:[250]
To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands.
However, WikiLeaks established an editorial policy that accepted only documents that were "of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest" (and excluded "material that is already publicly available").[251] This coincided with early criticism that having no editorial policy would drive out good material with spam and promote "automated or indiscriminate publication of confidential records".[252] It is no longer possible for anybody to post to it or edit it, in any country, as the original FAQ promised. Instead, submissions are regulated by an internal review process and some are published, while documents not conforming to the editorial criteria are rejected by anonymous WikiLeaks reviewers. By 2008, the revised FAQ stated that "Anybody can post comments to it. [...] Users can publicly discuss documents and analyse their credibility and veracity."[253] After the 2010 reorganisation, posting new comments on leaks was no longer possible.[31]
Defections[edit]
Within WikiLeaks, there has been public disagreement between founder and spokesperson Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the website's former German representative who was suspended by Assange. Domscheit-Berg announced on 28 September 2010 that he was leaving the organisation due to internal conflicts over management of the website.[115][254][255]


Julian Assange (left) with Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Domscheit-Berg was ejected from WikiLeaks and started a rival "whistleblower" organisation named OpenLeaks.
On 25 September 2010, after being suspended by Assange for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization", Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the German spokesman for WikiLeaks, told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, saying "WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project."[256][257][258] Assange accused Domscheit-Berg of leaking information to Newsweek, claiming the WikiLeaks team was unhappy with Assange's management and handling of the Afghan war document releases.[258] Daniel Domscheit-Berg wanted greater transparency in the articles released to the public. Another vision of his was to focus on providing technology that allowed whistle-blowers to protect their identity as well as a more transparent way of communicating with the media, forming new partnerships and involving new people.[259] Domscheit-Berg left with a small group to start OpenLeaks, a new leak organisation and website with a different management and distribution philosophy.[256][260]
While leaving, Daniel Domscheit-Berg copied and then deleted roughly 3,500 unpublished documents from the WikiLeaks servers,[261] including information on the US government's 'no-fly list' and inside information from 20 right-wing organisations, and according to a WikiLeaks statement, 5*gigabytes of data relating to Bank of America, the internal communications of 20 neo-Nazi organisations and US intercept information for "over a hundred internet companies".[262] In Domscheit-Berg's book he wrote: "To this day, we are waiting for Julian to restore security, so that we can return the material to him, which was on the submission platform."[263] In August 2011, Domscheit-Berg claims he permanently deleted the files "in order to ensure that the sources are not compromised."[264]
Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old Icelandic university student, resigned after he challenged Assange on his decision to suspend Domscheit-Berg and was bluntly rebuked.[258] Iceland MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir also left WikiLeaks, citing lack of transparency, lack of structure, and poor communication flow in the organisation.[265] According to the periodical The Independent (London), at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks left the website during 2010.[266]

it completely changed in 2010
 
[h=2]propaganda[/h]: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.



  • Now consider the Democrat campaign against Trump....

    All the women accusers are telling the truth(of course ignore the Clinton accusers of much more serious crimes)
    He didn't pay taxes for 2 decades (like he shouldn't claim the things the rest of do)
    HE'S a liar....(that one gotta make you chuckle)
    He claimed some business bankruptcy, so he is unfit to be president
    He called some women bad names (sic)...(while its ok for Hillary to call him a liar, a fraud, a racist, etc.)
    Hes dangerous because we don't know what he do...(how do you know what anyone will do)


    Yes folks,,,,this too, is propaganda
 
[h=2]propaganda[/h]: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.



  • Now consider the Democrat campaign against Trump....

    All the women accusers are telling the truth(of course ignore the Clinton accusers of much more serious crimes)
    He didn't pay taxes for 2 decades (like he shouldn't claim the things the rest of do)
    HE'S a liar....(that one gotta make you chuckle)
    He claimed some business bankruptcy, so he is unfit to be president
    He called some women bad names (sic)...(while its ok for Hillary to call him a liar, a fraud, a racist, etc.)
    Hes dangerous because we don't know what he do...(how do you know what anyone will do)


    Yes folks,,,,this too, is propaganda

Both are dishonest, but Trump lies WAY more than Hillary. There have been a few studies; he lies almost constantly. This is scientific - not opinion.
 
propaganda

: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.



  • Now consider the Democrat campaign against Trump....

    All the women accusers are telling the truth(of course ignore the Clinton accusers of much more serious crimes)
    He didn't pay taxes for 2 decades (like he shouldn't claim the things the rest of do)
    HE'S a liar....(that one gotta make you chuckle)
    He claimed some business bankruptcy, so he is unfit to be president
    He called some women bad names (sic)...(while its ok for Hillary to call him a liar, a fraud, a racist, etc.)
    Hes dangerous because we don't know what he do...(how do you know what anyone will do)


    Yes folks,,,,this too, is propaganda
:rolleyes: Trump is claiming the election will be rigged. Trump says America is so broken that only he can fix it. Trump says the country is being run by stupid people.

Trump is the equivalent of a sleazy used car salesman and dopes like you are buying his snake oil without a second thought.
 
Back
Top