I dont think the beef with wikileaks was ever about the accuracy of what they released. They do have a pretty clearly sterling track record. It is more of what do they choose to release or not release that brings in questions of partiality. But I am guessing you wont like this response.

So things that were never mentioned until he released stuff that damaged the Clinton campaign. Sounds legit.

Selective bias used to be the worst we had to fear from potentially trustworthy sources. Wikileaks exudes selective bias.

Its not a lie, but they don't release the whole truth. Sometimes a half truth is as bad as a lie.

And how do you know they haven't released some information yet?

Or that the information is partisan?

Oh, right, you can't know because you don't know what information they have.

I've looked at all their major releases. I've read reports suggesting selective withholding. I've watched Russia pledge protection for wikileaks and the leakers.

I don't know for sure because the nature of the agency makes that impossible. However, if you connect a few dots it looks suspicious. I'm sure everyone in this sub knows about connecting dots and using suspicion

This being the most famous example. Also the general focus for the last few years, kind of hard to ignore.

But kind of easy to explain, too. 'Hey Julian, why don't you spend less time attacking the people who've forced you to spend the last 7 years hiding in one building, and more time attacking the enemies of those people?' He is, after all, a human.

Ultimately, doesn't matter. It's leaks, that's the point. People leak things to them, they leak it to everyone, you get the leaks they leaked and there you go, something real you wouldn't have had otherwise. Job done, thanks very much.

I mean, you're right. He has every reason to be partisan, especially when it comes to UK or American politics, but doesn't really make it ethical. Thats all my point is

True enough, he ain't no savior, he's got an angle like everyone else. In simple terms - think about how much mileage he gets out of things he knows but won't tell you. At some point the gravity underneath him flipped, now he's just another secret keeper.

Difference is - his USP if you will - his secrets come with a cryptographic guarantee. For someone like me, who just wants to know the secrets for the sake of knowing them, that makes all the difference. I don't have to trust him to get value out of him, so I'll support him until he's done, or that changes.

The only ethical response to a rogue empire killing millions is to oppose it. Its amazing how people just tune out the millions murdered with no justification other than lies. That's like the Soviet Union pretending Stalin was not a genocidal maniac, ignoring what he did. This society is just as sick, or even sicker, since we are forgetting even recent history in Vietnam and Iraq, and plowing into Libya, Syria, Yemen, and soon Iran. Americans don't care. Someone needs to stop it, but it won't be us.

but doesn't really make it ethical. Thats all my point is

if he considered and pushed himself as a source of news then Id agree but he doesnt pretend to be that. He's just sharing information that he has obtained

Show me one bit of evidence that Wikileaks has anything that they haven't released for political reasons.

there are other places that have hosted leaks, specifically I think Glenn Greenwalds career was famous with Chelsea Manning. The Intercept has subsequently been a place that has hosted leaks, but they have probably lost some repute in regards after the reality winner fiasco

Im sorry, you are correct, it was edward snowden that released to the guardian and glenn greenwald. My apologies, I was wrong

You mean Snowden, not Manning.

From what I understand, they release what is sent to them after verification. If it checks out, they publish them. Those leaks have all come from government leakers, so by their very nature, they will be revealing something involving the governments actions. Now how those are reported in the news is where it gets bent into the “political reasons”.

Assange himself admitted to having info on Trump that he didn't release.

Because it was already available in the public domain.

No, because it "isn't any worse than what's already out there", even though Podesta's risotto recipe apparently was.

They release Republican info, democrats love them. They release Democrat info, republicans love them. What they fail to release is all the info they got from Israel spying on democrats for JCPOA or three info Germany had over Tony Blair for the Iraq war crimes. The fact money is their motive says enough.

I dont think the beef with wikileaks was ever about the accuracy of what they released. They do have a pretty clearly sterling track record.

Accuracy is the wrong metric for evaluating Wikileaks. It's not as if they are journalists doing actual reporting. Journalists should be judged on accuracy. But Wikileaks just dumps stolen documents onto the Internet. What's the room for error in doing that?

Saying Wikileaks' accuracy is 100% is like saying a bank robber is always thoughtful to use the ashtray when he puts out a cigarette, and always wipes his feet. So what.

That "stolen" information rightly belongs to us, the people. The criminal overlords stole our freedom, killed our children, and their evil secrets do not deserve to be protected but deserve to be exposed. Read up on what they think of you, you are totally dispensable in their aims which have nothing to do with the well being of this country but the well being of their own greed.

Sure you can critisize what they have released compared to what not, but compared to what Greenwald released on Snowden Julian is still miles ahead, and the world is so much better off with wikileaks than without that its really petty to be complaining. We should really be complaining that even the small amount Wikileaks has released is being mostly ignored. Damn, if that was addressed, it would take down a lot of people who are still walking free.

Agreed. I also dislike when wikileaks' accuracy is thrown out in defense of something Assange says. A wikileaks release and a tweet from Assange are two different things.

You're fighting a battle we've already won.

Save your energies, patriot!

My statement remains the same, I can't understand how that could harm the topic!

I enjoy all civil discourse that challenges ideas, but I think Reddit makes it too easy to make these exclusive communities and human psychology makes it too easy to resist the draw. This is not true for everyone of course, but I haven't yet found a way to efficiently pull people back from the trap.

If "patriot" is partisan were living in a fucked up world

We live in a time where words are used as weapons and being anything remotely close to patriotic is akin to being hateful to others. It’s a really sad state of affairs, IMO.

God himself could come down and denounce the current government and he would be written off as partisan.

There's a sect of Christianity now that believes great personal wealth is a path to godliness, and that rich people are good Christians.

Iirc, suicide is unforgivable but sodomy is not?

I'm asking, not making a comment veiled as a question

Patriotism is as meaningless as terrorist. Freedom fighters, rebels, patriots, terrorists. They're all the same depending on who agrees with you.

American patriots like Jefferson and Washington would've been labeled terrorists by today's standards. Ambush attacks, destruction of public goods, radical combat tactics.

I have no problem with wikileaks selectively releases information.

wikileaks originated at a time when there was a spirit of internet culture that we force the big brother on his knees.

The ammunition available for this purpose is limited, so you have to decide which battle to fight at which time.

wikileaks may seem partisan at the moment, but that will change soon, just like before.

That sounds hard, but he doesn't have to survive, there will always be one after him.

Therefore, we have to focus on the fights that allow us to maintain a free net and leak the information we leave to those who know how to play the game.

Only if you think it's the end, man is an extraordinary being.

When we are confronted with new problems, we find a way to solve them, and governments are always slow and sluggish, and they will only be able to

react, and most of the time only when it is too late.

The internet will always be our most precious tool in avoiding censorship. So long as the world is connected we will exchange ideas freely.

That being said, the ability to disseminate and debate truth is being absolutely annihilated. In the US, Trump's rhetoric will have long lasting effects on our ability, as a culture, to determine truth. He is not the first to blast negative news as fake, but he catapulted into the white house on his ability to galvanize his supporters against any criticism or semblance of fault.

We will all suffer from this. Eventually, Team Trump will dissolve and the remains will squabble over truth as hard as they fought against Trump's opposition. Chaos.

Are you including the Wikileaks twitter in this request?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it IS 100% accurate. For example, this is like saying prove to me that god DOES NOT exist. If you claim it's true, then the burden of proof is on you. Logic 101.

You are asking us to prove the non existence of 100% accuracy. You are pre supposing 100% accuracy from the get go.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

You're missing the point. Your submission is that wikileaks is 100% accurate and someone should prove you wrong.

The burden of proof is on you to support your assertion of 100% accuracy, but I think this is failed wording more than anything. I think you meant to invite evidence of lies or inaccuracies to see if they are inaccurate.

No one is thinking for you man. We're simply explaining how your argument is poorly made from the get go. It's just some basic logic. No need to get so defensive we're are here to learn.

What do I need to learn? I'm trying to explain to you how your argument is not worded properly. Do you understand where I'm coming from?

What the fuck is your problem? If you want to engage in a meaningful manner with other people and have productive conversations then you're way out of line

Sure it's accurate, but where were the Trump campaign emails? What they did in 2016 was obviously an organized attack on the Democratic party.

Whether or not it's accurate is a moot point. The NSA has accurate information too, that doesn't make what they do right.

That sounds hard, but he doesn't have to survive, there will always be one after him.

Therefore, we have to focus on the fights that allow us to maintain a free net and leak the information we leave to those who know how to play the game.

Only if you think it's the end, man is an extraordinary being.

When we are confronted with new problems, we find a way to solve them, and governments are always slow and sluggish, and they will only be able to

react, and most of the time only when it is too late.

The internet will always be our most precious tool in avoiding censorship. So long as the world is connected we will exchange ideas freely.

That being said, the ability to disseminate and debate truth is being absolutely annihilated. In the US, Trump's rhetoric will have long lasting effects on our ability, as a culture, to determine truth. He is not the first to blast negative news as fake, but he catapulted into the white house on his ability to galvanize his supporters against any criticism or semblance of fault.

We will all suffer from this. Eventually, Team Trump will dissolve and the remains will squabble over truth as hard as they fought against Trump's opposition. Chaos.

And how do you know they haven't released some information yet?

Or that the information is partisan?

Oh, right, you can't know because you don't know what information they have.