BolexForSoup @ BolexForSoup @kbin.social

Former landed gentry.

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

1,258

Joined

2 yr. ago

Privileged stance is privileged.

I can’t be too mad about it though, I love Ron Swanson lol

I think one thing that isn’t quite talked about enough re: anti-vaxxers is how wildly ableist they are.

Edit: spelling

There is entirely too much potential money to be made and too many interested parties to ever say this.

You know! Like a bong!

Sorry couldn’t resist. Ripping is a term from CD/DVD days. You’d “rip” the contents off, i.e. make a digital backup. Now it’s applied to making backups of streams as well. Obviously the contents of these discs and streams are your property or otherwise legally obtained materials and are not being duplicated, sold, or in any way distributed to others if the content does not belong to you.

Folks need to learn how to rip. It’s a little more tedious but you can’t be tracked and the quality is almost always better. Even the most inexperienced can get started after a few hours of research and tinkering.

Oh come on are you seriously going to play dumb now? WikiLeaks had a very specific purpose and goal. You cannot possibly compare it to a standard news outlet. You are really stretching things here. This has become a total waste of time.

NSFW tag please

I think the more important question is why y’all think the charges are fabricated.

I will admit, I don’t know what to think, but that’s because the waters have become so muddy around those allegations. But I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that this was fabricated other than “it’s something that the government would do.”

So you don’t agree that the entire (claimed) raison d’être of wikileaks was that they were a haven for whistleblowers to bring their information to be vetted by quality journalists and released to the broader public, regardless of the political leanings of the information or people involved?

I agree with you that we should not be thrusting that mandate on outlets. But that’s not what happened. WikiLeaks claimed to be a beacon of transparency. That is a bar they set for themselves. I don’t care if they are “biased“ or whatever, I care that their job is to release information (their own mandate) and then they withhold it when it isn’t convenient for Assange’s politics.

I didn’t say journalists had to be neutral. I never used the word neutral. Objectivity is a myth and impossible to obtain.

I’m saying these journalists didn’t want to work for a flagrantly partisan organization
that lied about its commitment to transparency.

If you want to be a mouthpiece for Putin and conservative talking points, then you need to not pretend you’re evenhanded and egalitarian with your leaks and publication.

Unfortunately, what we actually learned is that WikiLeaks existed for him to help those he politically agrees with. There is a reason every self-respecting journalist who worked with WikiLeaks has since walked away and no, it is not because of the US government going after him. It’s because WikiLeaks wasn’t engaging in transparency and quality journalism.

The truth is important. Isn’t that the whole point of Wikileaks?

“A bit of a scumbag” dilutes the fact that he failed at the very mission people praise him for. I am happy to admit that I am was somewhat off in my initial reading of their comment. I do not want to get bogged down in that.

The point is that Assange was a useful tool for a certain brand of politics and certain parties. We all need to recognize that. “He’s a bit of a scum bag” isn’t even close to the reality of how nefarious his actions were.

I feel like you’re not allowing two statements to be true.

1. Assange is being doggedly pursued by the US for leaking state secrets. No I do not think he deserves to be punished for information he released like with Afghanistan. I think we are better for it and clearly this is the US making an example of him. Obviously we all knew he would be pursued, but again, I think that was the morally right thing to do, and I believe in protecting whistleblowers
2. I also take umbrage with any attempts to make him out to be a good person or in any way virtuous, which is what the comment I responded to did. He isn’t. He had my support when he was standing for transparency, and he lost it when it became clear he saw leaks as a tool for his political preferences and friends.

We can hold these two ideas at the same time.

As for the sexual assault allegations against him, I have no clue what to think the waters are too muddy there. So I just don’t engage that generally.

I am not saying I condone what he did

I’m not sure what we are debating/discussing. If you’re going to claim you are a bastion of transparency and information for the general public, then no, you can’t weaponize your site and omit politically damaging information about political groups you agree with/are aligned with.

That’s not just revenge against the US. That’s failing to provide the transparency you claim to stand for. He chose to obscure information based on his own whims. How is that not an issue?

Wikileaks had their own leak and it was a very interesting read.

Yes. Wikileaks is supposed to be a tool of transparency. Not a tool for his political revenge.

Louder for the folks who think incognito mode saves them from prying eyes lol