And supporting the prosecution because of this is also quite an apt reason to not vote for her in the first place. And I think that was made clear before the election.
Don't even have to go very deep. Just look at these tweets [0] for example. Why is some "non-profit" organization started by an Australian trying to influence an American election?
[0] https://www.vox.com/2016/9/15/12929262/wikileaks-hillary-cli...
I have not seen any evidence of Russian interference, but they probably tried. I don't think they got any talking points across to be honest.
This non profit had proof of war crimes and maybe that influenced their disposition? Understandable in my opinion.
In general I am suspect of anyone pointing fingers at others to build a profile. Trump could do that and some people understood that it was holding up a mirror. That is no Trump endorsement and the Russian story an excuse. I believe internal leaks are much more likely.
I'm assuming you mean wikileaks?
> contrast to many media outlets
American media outlets, they're not not foreign nation trying to influence another country's elections. Assange isn't American.
> I have not seen any evidence of Russian interference
So just because you haven't seen it, they don't exist? There's ample proof [0]. 13 people and 3 russian entities were charged.
At first they said the most damning thing in there was recipes.
Then they said it cost them the election.
But they refused to say which leaks were responsible.
Then they claimed the swing voters they lost believed in pizzagate as if it were a mainstream conspiracy theory believed by many and that all the swing voters were therefore complete idiots.
Also if you're going to blame a conspiracy theory that was conjured out of thin air the leaks really didnt actually matter. An equally stupid pretext could have been invented, so why say they cost you the election?
So, according to them the leaks both cost them the election and didnt matter in the slightest.
If you think about all this for just a second it logically doesnt make any goddamn sense but people still parrot it. Those same people will instinctively hit that downvote button.
I read your message waiting, line after line, for the dumb statement that got you downvoted. How do people still claim that there's no politically motivated mass-flagging going on on HN?
In the end, Assange is just a scapegoat. Although, he wouldn't be the first or the last. When WikiLeaks was being used to disclose information about other countries, US citizens and even the Government saw them as a positive force in the world. But, once the info focused on US affairs, especially around a Presidential election, Assange was public enemy number one (tied with Snowden).
[Citation needed]
"How do we prevent Bush from bettering himself/how do we maximize Trump and others?" [1]
"We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously." [2]
[0] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...
[1] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10348
[2] (PDF) https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/1120/251
Is it a crime to subvert democracy? Apparently not when it’s your side doing it.
There were claims that Assange sat on Trumps mails, but genuinely I don’t think that’s the case and if it was then people likely would still vote for him as he is openly horrible: the emails proved Hilary was calculated.
Honestly if your biggest gripe with Assange is that he caused your person to lose then you have to ask yourself: did you just not want to know that your candidate was trying to subvert democracy?
The Sanders stuff was enough to put me off the DNC (actively hampering his chances of being a presidential candidate by removing him from ballots for instance), but learning that Hillary was the one with media contacts and pushing Cruz and Trump to be president is the ultimate backfire.
Should this man go to prison, for life, because your person didn’t get 4 years in office? Because of things she herself said?
Both parties do this. Pointing it out isn't whataboutism. Pointing it out is showing that Assange is the one who made political moves. He targeted specific politicians to leak negative information at opportune times. He didn't do this out of a sense of bringing the truth to light, he did this to further a political agenda. Where are his leaks on the republican party?
Did you provide him with some leaks? As he can't publish what he doesn't have. Though there is some evidence that the same group that leaked the DNC emails had access to RNC data, there is no evidence that shows Assange had any knowledge of or access to RNC data.
"News is what somebody does not want you to print. All the rest is advertising."
I've seen a lot of them. On some topics especially when audience don't have access to the ground truth, they(zesty activists disguised as objective journalists) are majority. This lead to a big gap between the perceptions on the same topic among different groups of audience and each group consider the other one are brainwashed.
The difference between activists and advertisers is: the later are knowingly try to sell something while the former thought they are telling truth which make the hidden activists more deceptive.
That's exactly what journalists do - newspaper editors are senior journalists.
It is likely that the attacks on Assange were all in good faith. Still baseless though, the fellow has all but secured his place in the history books as a hero at this point.
I don't know. Not astroturfing though, that has implications that the people arguing don't believe what they are saying and are just in it for a cheque.
1. In it for the cheque. 2. Believe the people who are in it for the cheque.
Given that there's very rarely an easy way to tell them apart and 2 follows 1?
Honest question.
I would lean towards calling it a wave of astroturfing given that 2 doesnt happen without 1 and 2 and 1 are inseparable, but I can potentially see the argument for using different terminology if there is something more precise.
What, though?
Then we got the Snowden leaks and that prior had to be updated...
By 2020 Greenwald was basically persona-non-grata for not pulling either US party lines and his strong support for people like Snowden. Despite his great work in Brazil on human rights and anti-corruption which is something that goes beyond partisan politics and should be lauded.
The problem is people trying to put him (or everybody) into convenient boxes - representing singular view points - without shades of grey, like the 24 hour news talking head guests pushing sound bites.
The type of pressure on any person who dares to enter political news for a living. Which to me seems like a never ending gauntlet.
If tomorrow Sanders starts spouting antivaxx stuff, and half the internet starts attacking him, you wouldn't go and say "there's a misinformation campaign astroturfing against Sanders".
Astroturfing is when you specifically skip the convincing part
Slight rant: People just get enamored with the story of the dark horse "journalist" fighting against the odds to expose corruption. In reality, the NY Times, The Guardian, The New Yorker, Pro Publica have all exposed vastly more salient information and done it all ethically and faced down all legal challenges in US courts and won.
Wikileaks just became a source you wouldn't quote anymore because Assange became an obvious and offensive puppet of a secret service.
He killed it himself. Before that WL was quoted by reputable journalists. They've taken the stuff serious. It's been part of the discussion.
Now it'll never be that again.
This is the result of astroturfing. You don't even need a reference, you can just say this, and people accept it.