Hacker News Reader

Comment by commonlisp94 | Hacker News Reader

> influence US elections

I can't believe this narrative is still repeated. "influence" can mean almost anything. In the headliner 2016 story, it meant a few based Russian organizations bought several million dollars of targeted Facebook ads. That's what broke democracy I guess.

In Assange's case it means he released existing emails which reflected negatively on a candidate. In that past most of his released material has negatively reflected on republicans.

The US has an interest in, and is "influencing" foreign election 24/7 365.

View on HN

You've lost a lot of the nuance which is part of the complexity. Assange released emails stolen from the DNC and given to him by Russian intelligence. He also made the decision not to publish data from similar attacks on the RNC. By doing so, he either should have known or for sure did know that he was acting in the interest of Russia to interfere in American elections.

> He also made the decision not to publish data from similar attacks on the RNC.

I've been watching Assange's odissey quite closely and I don't remember seeing anything about withholding data "on the RNC". Do you have an example?

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...

Both things happened around the same time, both sourced to Russian hackers. It is unknown if Assange was offered the RNC emails for release. It is pretty clear this was done for political ends to aid Donald Trump, less clear if Assange was personally "in" on it.

I read that the RNC "maybe" was hacked, not that WikiLeaks received anything. As a matter of fact WikiLeaks is mentioned nowhere in the article. Are you making the conjecture here that hacked also implies leaked?

If the theory that the hacks and the leaks of the DNC documents come from Russia to sabotage Clinton's chances holds water, it would make more sense that the Russian sources release to WikiLeaks only the dirt on the DNC, doesn't it?

If the New york times or new York post receive documents and they publish ones and not others with a partisan motive they're still not criminals.

So this is a typical bullshit thing for democrat-party aligned people for whom the ends justifies the means and there's no bad tactics, only bad targets. The very same types that tell you "twitter files are partisan nothing burgers" and that people like Matt Taibbi are "right wingers".

I don't care what the FBI tries to pull to muddy the waters. Or the government toppling CIA, for that matter.

Assange has been pursued and illegally imprisoned for exposing corruption and doing journalism, nothing more.

You got one thing right:

"twitter files are partisan nothing burgers"

You just exposed yourself as a partisan hack.

Glenn greenwald and taibbi are not republican sycophants but true left but, just like criticizing Hillary made you "russian" or trumpist, seeing the truth about censorship makes you "right winger/republican".

Edit: hypocrisy at its finest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927153

It's so hilarious. You can't even come up with an original dismissal. It's the same old tired labels. Try harder.

You are the one being partisan everywhere on this site. Anything you can bring politics into, and even where you shouldn't, you do.

you're stalking me with your bad takes and when you get actual debate you run.

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4125603-facebook-fi...

fun how the nothingburger even applies to jokes.

Begone, troll.

Firstly, I am not trolling nor have I done anything to justify your behavior, read the rules around here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

" Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

Secondly, there is no debate here. I am merely witnessing the equivalent of a person screaming uncontrollably for no reason at an intersection in a big city.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com