Who is Julian Assange for you?

This comment is unfortunately proof that character assassination is very effective. Funny that you criticize blasts of information out of context when that is the entire basis of this argument.

Fine, provide the context that negates my criticism since you apparently are able to think for yourself and I am merely parroting character assassination.

@Auberon89: Well your claim he is a narcissist as near as I can tell is supported only by your opinion. Suggesting that a hacker (in the traditional sense) from Australia has person vendettas with world leaders is bizarre and confusing. Your criticism of his lack of vetting proves you don't even understand what his function with wikileaks is since he personally has no involvement in any vetting process whatsoever and if you bothered to look into the sexual assault charges you would know it is a laughable pathetic attempt to get him extradited to the US a country he has no responsibility to whatsoever as an Australian citizen which is being carried out in a pathetic display of grovelling by a Swedish government that seems to believe it is an American colony.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow: I criticized his lack of redaction. Wikileaks used to utilize journalists to redact their information so as to protect the personal information of individuals who may have been compromised. He decided that he no longer had the patience for that sort of thing and it has led to the personal data of victims being released to the public, thereby revictimizing them. This is a fact. He also released information on the DNC which contained no smoking gun but which was timed to try and create controversy prior to the convention in which Hilary Clinton, a politician who has personally called for his indictment, was to receive the nomination for president. His focus on Clinton while overlooking Trumo has displayed clear bias, the most likely motivation for which is his personal aggrievement at her criticism.

What I find sirtnodnsilly is that you would attempt to invalidate my criticism because of the presence of an opinion and then proceed to rebut me with a screed that basically contains nothing but opinion. Part of what makes Assange and his worshippers so irritating is that you guys expect to be able to dismiss the opinion's or analyses of others without subjecting your own to critical thought. You can find that laughable if you wish, sycophants often do laugh at any criticism of their heroes, after all.

Sorry but this shows a clear lack of understanding of how his organization works. your claims about vetting completely contradicts statements by the likes of Manning and Snowden who made him a household name. Wikileaks is just a place to keep the information. Blaming him is like blaming the company that hosts this site's servers for content posted by users. Also since he is not the source of the data he publishes the idea that he is trying to influence politics is silly since he only publishes info given to him as is by others. The problem with your criticism is it is based on opinion and nothing more and furthermore it is based on opinions of people who obviously do not even understand how wikileaks even functions.

Again there is really nothing to your argument but the assertions of a true believer. He really, truly did adhere to a more responsible redacting regimen once upon a time. Furthermore, he chooses what to publish and what to hold on to, he also chooses when to publish. There is a tremendous amount of influence wielded in those decisions. You are not acquitting yourself well as some sort of expert on wikileaks, or as someone who can divorce himself from his hero worship and view things critically and rationally. 🙂

(Also please, please, please look up 'redacting'. You keep responding as if it is interchangeable with 'vetting' and it is not at all the same thing. It's ok to not know a thing, it's tiresome to not admit you don't know it and thereby continue to make the same easily avoided mistake)

@Auberon89: Actually you are proving you know nothing about how his organization works beyond ill informed second hand info. Your opinion is based on a belief not fact. And you are the one who does not seem to understand redacting since it makes zero sense in the context you are using it. I know what it means. Also to suggest that journalists have the qualifications to vet classified information and decide on what to publish from there is kind of ludicrous. Also the very idea that the belief that redacting something is relevant is kind of funny. This is the internet not a 19th century newspaper. if it is published it is out in the wild basically forever so trying to put a genie back in the bottle is a waste of time. Also deciding what names for example to publish is called vetting. Trying to undo what has been published after the fact is beyond silly. And the fact that you blame him for having a so called agenda is a total straw man since any idiot knows there is no such thing as unbiased media of any kind. So you are trying to demonize him for something all media does. At least unlike 99% of US media he can claim that his information is not outright fabrications.

@Auberon89: You also seem to be oblivious to the fact that in regards to the Guardian in particular dealing with journalists he basically has had "journalists" working for corporate media try and censor and or hijack stories to placate their paymasters so they are hardly an asset to his organization.

Reviewing documents prior to release and concealing personal, privileged or confidential information contained therein is called redacting. Wikileaks used to have journalists doing that for them, now they don't do it. It takes a special person to be so obtuse as to decide to define words the way they want to rather than admit a mistake. I'm sorry that pointing out some of the less noble aspects of your hero hurts your feelings, but that's the way things are, no matter how much you want to stamp your feet and pretend otherwise.

@Auberon89: Actually that is called vetting. Redacting is removing incorrect or inaccurate info or printing a correction. You also don't seem to understand who is responsible for that job or even who is qualified to do that.

Correction. Turns out you were correct on the use of the word redacting. Unfortunately it is the only thing you have accurate. I was thinking of a retraction. My bad. Anyway what you are saying makes no sense since journalists would not even have access to the information to make those decisions let alone know what to redact and also Manning (under oath) and Snowden have very publicly stated as has Assange stated that that was the responsibility of the person submitting the leaks.

@Auberon89: You also completely ignore that journalists are not and never have been neutral third parties and in fact have proven to in at least some cases have agendas counter to the goal of wikileaks.

Oh my god, please just google "wiki leaks redaction policy" and educate yourself rather than continuing to pull arguments out of your ass. If you want to have a different opinion from mine that is fine. If you want to venerate Assange as your own personal hero then that is fine too. It's inexcusable though that you keep speaking so authoritatively on a subject about which you have proven yourself to be hopelessly ignorant. I can't keep arguing with someone this firmly opposed to learning and verification. It's embarrassing to behold and obnoxious to deal with.

@Auberon89: Yeah because anything on Google is gospel right? So I guess he is evil because you don't agree with a policy? I will give you credit though you have successfully distracted from the issue by baiting me into running around after your straw man. Part of the problem is you hold this belief that somehow involving journalists with their own agendas will magically improve something. Also you insist on shooting the messenger. If someone gets hurt because of the information leaked at most that can be arguably blamed on the whistle blower not the publisher.

Google search leads to other publications and articles, genius. Search engines don't write their own content. No wonder you don't know what you are talking about.

@Auberon89: I never claimed otherwise. You are the one that suggested that because something comes up in a search engine it was credible or at least implied it.

I urged you to inform yourself about a subject you have demonstrated ignorance in. You continue to resist, which is really your problem, not mine.

@Auberon89: You take a very arrogant and superior attitude but have yet to prove there is anything behind your argument except your own personal opinion. So I briefly confused two definitions. At least I had the sense to acknowledge that. You simply ignore or dismiss anything you disagree with.

Now you're just projecting.

@Auberon89: As I figured. More avoidance. So based on your argument he should keep on staff journalists with separate agendas who in the past even proved to be undermining his goals so that people like you who believe in 19th century gate keepers of knowledge feel comfortable about where they get spoon fed info from?

You have your head way too far up your ass to listen to and understand my argument. It's kind of hilarious given how quick you were to accuse me of utilizing a straw man argument (another concept you should look up to avoid future embarrassment).

And yes, I am avoiding the issue with you at this point. You're free to think that it is because you have airtight and unassailable points to make and that my ego can't take the prospect of being effectively questioned, but the truth is you have already shown yourself to be more interested proclaiming others to be wrong about your hero based on your very strong feelings (even when it comes to the proper use and definition of words) rather than any meaningful exchange of informed ideas. I can't reasonably expect that you will listen and you don't have anything to offer me in terms of ideas or discourse so why waste time on it at this point?

@Auberon89: And now you resort to insults to avoid backing your own argument with substance. You accuse me of not exchanging informed ideas and all you have done is throw insults and avoid the issue. Look in the mirror before passing judgement on others.

First off you are fixating on one small point and avoiding the fact that I demolished the rest of your argument. Also the point you are fixated on is predicated on an assumption that having journalists working for organizations that have not had any real credibility since the 1970s was a benefit to start with. For your argument to hold water you need to at least prove those journalists being let go was a negative beyond perception.

@Auberon89: Your criticism furthermore rests on blaming the publisher rather then blaming the person who provided the information. Based on that logic if someone publishes a slanderous book the publisher should be blamed not the author.

Uh huh. I'm ok with you thinking you "demolished my argument" if it makes you feel better. 😁

@Auberon89: Clearly you have no interest in intelligent debate. Time to stop feeding the troll.