338
submitted 9 months ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Remind me, why do you guys not like Assange (or WikiLeaks by extension) again? Is it just the Clinton leaks stuff?

[-] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn't, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.

He has an agenda, and it's not press freedom.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -4 points 9 months ago

>If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn’t, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.

what makes you think he had something to release?

[-] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

He leaked information from the DNC, but never released the same email logs for the RNC. He was given both following a known hack of both the DNC and the RNC. He released 1 side, and then tried promote the conspiracy about Seth Richs death.

He has an agenda. Wikileaks is a good idea, but I don’t buy that it didn't have a state backer.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 9 months ago

what makes you think he was given the rnc information?

[-] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Because we know for a fact the information was taken from both as part of the same breach of the RNC and DNC servers by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, Russian state actors.

If Assange was not aware of the additional information from the breach that's just as bad, because he's happy to be a useful idiot with a fanbase.

So he's either malicious or stupid. Neither is worthy of admiration.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 9 months ago

there is a possibility that nothing from the rnc was that damning (i doubt this), or he felt that releasing it would dilute the seriousness of both sets of accusations.

but this is assuming he had access to the rnc hack, and that is not proven.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -1 points 9 months ago

this does not entail that they handad that information to assange.

[-] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

You? Who are you talking to? I, for one, like him

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago

Oh no I like Assange. I have heard some people before saying negative things about WikiLeaks and by extension Assange so I asked. My understanding was they think/thought it's beholden to the Kremlin or something.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

I mean I don't think it's beholden to the Kremlin, but I do think that Julian Assange participated in the same type of secretive disinformation campaign that he claimed to vehemently oppose. I also think he's not really a man driven by principles, but one driven by ego and fame.

I also think he, like 90% of powerful men involved in tech, probably uses his position of power to sexually harass women.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -4 points 9 months ago

it could also be chelsea manning. some people cant get enough of that five-sided dick.

this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
338 points (94.9% liked)

News

23284 readers
1534 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS