Hacker News Reader

Comment by abritinthebay | Hacker News Reader

Exactly.

Wikileaks has continually misrepresented, lied, and obfuscated the truth. Not just on this issue.

They repeatedly put innocent people in danger and generally favor a very obvious set of political stances (and one of those is being incredibly obviously slanted towards Russia).

Now you can speculate over why they do it, but THAT they do it remains a matter of fact.

View on HN

Which of their actions are so obviously pro-Russia? I can think of some that are pro-Russia in the sense that they are attacking Russia's opponents but those targets are opposed by others as well, making the conclusion less clear. The most well-known example: is helping Snowden seek asylum pro-Russia or anti-USA? The fact that they were seeking asylum in more than Russia, it seems more anti-USA.

To be clear: I'm not saying it's a deliberate pro-Russian policy - I can see how that might have been implied - but it's undeniable that a large number of their actions benefit Russian interests.

Maybe they are unwitting pawns, or just useful fools, but that it's serving those goals is rather obvious.

You seem to be saying that if leaks benefit Russian policy, the bearer of those leaks is a pawn or a useful idiot.

If legit information benefits someone, it doesn't make that information tainted or the bearer of that information biased or a pawn. I don't care whose interests the truth benefits. We all deserve to know the truth regardless of whom it benefits.

Not at all. When it's a consistent pattern of leaks that are released and misrepresented (for whatever purpose) that benefit one party...

... well then they are either a tool or a fool.

This is Wikileaks now: either in the pocket, or foolish enabler, of Russian interests.

They could be either, but they are one of them.

Nuance is impossible on twitter, so I afford them some lack of brevity in that medium. But beyond that I haven't noticed them editorialize. They release the docs and people can look at them to come to their own conclusions.

Can you show me any examples where they "... continually misrepresented, lied, and obfuscated the truth."

The brevity of Twitter is not at fault. The whole purpose of their account there seems to be to editorialize the leaks. It's clearly more than just an announcement channel of new releases for people "to come to their own conclusions". They tweet conclusions supported, sometimes incorrectly, with links.

Sure - basically everything around Clinton's position on DOMA was misrepresented. Almost everything about the supposed Colorado voter fraud was straight made up.

Those are just two off the top of my head (I believe Snopes has a lot of detail about those two fwiw).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com