Hacker News Reader

Comment by thingexplainer | Hacker News Reader

This isn't a very interesting criticism. If WikiLeaks says an anonymous source told them something that is a.) completely believable and b.) isn't what a onymous source would be able to say, I see no reason to doubt them. I don't have an extraordinarily high confidence in a claim based on an anonymous witness alone, but journalists (lets squint hard enough to still call Assange a journalist for a moment) do this all the time.

Do you have other evidence to bring to the table? Do you have reason to doubt a.) or b.)?

View on HN

On the one hand we have a reputable media company reporting quotes from reputable sources, and on the other we have WikiLeaks (with a very well documented agenda) claiming the exact opposite from an anonymous source.

The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes, whereas WikiLeaks and its anonymous source, aren't putting anything on the line since a large part of their business model depends on making claims that can only be proven in their favor, but never in reverse.

Example, this claim about who is responsible for cutting Assange's internet access. Let's say the US did not cut his internet. There is absolutely nothing The State Department can say to make WikiLeaks supporters believe them. Whereas, anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters since the only people that can provide evidence to the contrary, WikiLeaks supporters don't trust. It's the same approach taken by Alex Jones (They want to take your guns, they want to put you in fema camps, etc...), Trump (A lot of people are saying...)

Oh and btw, I'm not saying you should just blindly believe what the government tells you, but until any actual evidence is provided to support another explanation, there is no reason to assume it is true.

Bonus hypocritical Trump tweet: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/78183870603031347...

>anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters

It used to be a saying that geeks can't do politics. And now after what I've seen of years of slashdot, digg, Reddit, and HN I think its fair to say that saying is true. The problem I see is that people who think they're smart think they must automatically be immune to propaganda, bias, etc because, well, they're so smart. I find the techie personality to be unusually vulnerable to propaganda and conspiracy theories. I think this type of thinking gives simple answers and black and white thinking that are intellectually satisfying and dismiss the incredible complexity of human interactions. Its very easy to just eat up anti-US college identity politics and make the US be the devil in all things. Its simple and is emotionally satisfying. The problem is that its also incorrect, especially when your "good guys" are Russia, China, and Iran.

I agree with you 100%. Most political talking points on sites like Reddit (and even HN) are just platitudes. The problem is they've been repeated so often that even questioning something is ground for a public tar and feathering.

We cannot have any sort of meaningful dialog when the opposition on both sides is painted into a caricature.

George W. Bush had an amazing quote during the memorial service for the fallen Dallas PD officers. Paraphrasing but: "We judge other groups by their worst and ourselves by our intentions"

> The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes

I think the disconnect here is just how much weight you put on this statement here. For a significant number of people a lot of recent news has severely damaged the reputations of these institutions as well as shown that their reputations really wouldn't be impacted by their claims being shown to be false.

I don't know that there's a reason to specifically doubt a or b, but in contrast to their other major (and known valid) leaks, this one is much more tied to their organizational interests, so there's that much more reason to be healthily skeptical of it.

> that is a.) completely believable

How so?

If ecuador was going to give in to US demands, why wouldnt they just let the US extradite Asssange?

Clearly the US doesnt have the type of pull with Ecuador to force their hand, why would you think this is any different?

you believe that john kerry alone was able to convince them to cut the internet, but the fact that 3 separate countries want him arrested is meaningless to them?

Doesnt sound believable to me at all. so yes, i have reason to doubt a)

Because they're willing to do one thing but not the other?

Irrelevant to your point, but I hadn't heard “onymous” as the antonym of “anonymous” before, thank you for that.

It isn't a real word I'm afraid, but an FBI invention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous

It is a real word though.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...

Thanks, learned something new.

interesting, I've always used "nonymous" for that, but "onymous" is etymologically sounder

Yeah, I was going to say "nonymous" was etymologically superior, but then I looked up the etymology for anonymous before hitting send.

Given that the English (/Germanic) is "name" and the French is "nom", I would have expected the PIE for name to be some sort of "nVm"-ish thing, whence I expected the Greek to render it is some sort of "non"-ish thing. The actual Greek is ónoma, with the PIE being something like *hnómn. (So my PIE guess was right-ish, but the transition to Hellenic was wrong).

This is Ancient Greek and the antonym is "eponymous". Unfortunately it has a double meaning, used more often as "named after". So we got 'onymous' which has no meaning as an old root.

If the quote is about Wikileaks then I certainly see reason to doubt them. They have obvious motivations.

Ascribing government propaganda to anonymous sources is basically 70% of the New York Times "reporting".

But what seems to be in question here is if WikiLeaks said "US officials speaking on condition of anonymity said that enhanced interrogation was vital to finding Osama Bin Laden," did WikiLeaks actually talk to those officials and did they really say that? Or are they promoting their brand as a marginalized alternative news source that the government is trying to fight?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com