Delete your account

It was the content that did the damage not the timing. There was a lot of unethical and illegal activity that was exposed. Those implicated are are not fit to hold office.

Is it because they were politically opportunistic, or because their leaks went against the media's politics?

Without question Assange was against HRC and Obama. The latter kept him as a political prisoner for 6 years despite UN rulings, "War on Whistleblowers", etc., and the former had already made an appearance in Cablegate and no doubt was not going to let him walk free either.

Even if there is a (legitimate) political motivation, facts and misdeeds are facts and misdeeds, and leakers should be protected regardless.

I believe there is also another angle that should not be ignored. Now, I sure as hell agree with your sentiment. I just don't think it's the whole picture.

In addition to trying to play a kingmaker, WL has become an unwitting subtle propaganda outlet. In an interview with Risky Business (a podcast), the infosec and opsec veteran The Grugq pointed this out. And it's an interesting chain where individually rational decisions have produced an irrational result.

1. WikiLeaks became the target of a witch hunt because they had become politically inconvenient.

2. Their resources were cut (eg. the VISA embargo), which greatly limited their ability to do good journalism. People associated with WL were routinely harrassed, which I also equate with cutting into their resources - Assange turning out to be a less-than-likeable personality further contributed to the attrition. Individuals simply started to make their own rational decisions.

3. In order to remain relevant at all, WL needed to publish more leaks.

4. Due to resources being scarce, they would have to do this in a way which carried the biggest potential payback. In other words, time the leaks to provide maximum visibility and downstream reporting.

5. Since there were less resources to expend on journalism aspect, the leaks were more and more "dump it all out, and let the audience sieve it through". Practically everyone on HN will agree that quantity over quality is a self-enforcing cycle. Surprise, surprise: downstream reporting suffers.

6. WL may have the brand name (even if their previous actions are turning the brand toxic), but are desperate to remain relevant.

7. At this point outside parties with their own propaganda motives have already tested the waters by feeding WL with minor leak archives. When WL actions show their desperation, these parties will slowly ramp up the drip in their leak feeds.

8. Grasping for straws, WL realises that the quality of the provided material is good enough to keep their brand alive and relevant.

9. Their biggest weapon is timing, but lack of resources (and possibly the timing of the leak material) means they have even less opportunities to do proper journalism. It's "dump it all out" all over again.

10. WL knows that they are being played, but they have no choice. The parties using them as their divorced propaganda outlet are also the source of their best leak material. If WL stopped publishing the leaks, they would not only lose any remaining impact but also risk alienating their remaining sources.

The steps 3-9 are repeated, and 7-10 are enforced.

Now, the really interesting bit in the interview was that The Grugq pointed out how steps 3-10 were inevitable even if the first two had never happened. WL was always destined to become an unwitting propaganda horn, simply by the nature of geopolitics. The need to remain relevant by any means necessary was guaranteed to result in this same chain, simply because international espionage agencies could, via third parties, flood them with more than enough low-grade but linkbaity material.

After all, the parties involved in this business have been honing their propaganda distribution skills for decades if not centuries.

EDIT: newlines to split each step into own paragraphs.

Thank! In v1.0 most of the things that were deprecated from Express 4.0 [1] (and a couple more) work out of the box. On v1.1 you get websockets for free[2] as a router method and a plugin system that goes way beyond what is possible with express middleware so other integrations are possible (think about passport, aws' s3 and the likes).

Truth be told, for the initial release I only expect 2 groups of people to truly benefit from this: those creating new projects on a regular basis and those getting started with Node.js. I've taught to some people how to get started with Node.js and since Express 4.0 it's been quite challenging so I expect this to really help.

[1] http://expressjs.com/en/guide/migrating-4.html

[2] Not yet available (and wouldn't work on jsfiddle anyway): https://jsfiddle.net/franciscop/6ca5gzn7/

I guess that Twitter enables you to follow profiles through e-mail, while Facebook doesn't (walled garden). So, maybe you could live without Twitter.