This might be a good moment to remind people that Assange has been the victim of a successful smear campaign since the moment a woman did NOT make a rape allegation against him in Sweden.
Nils Melzer, UN special rapporteur on torture, actually went over the original proceedings and gave a long format interview on the matter lately. He too took some convincing to even touch the case, that's how effective sexual violence as a smear tactic is.
Which is a damn shame, given that there's plenty of real sexual violence to go around, and which now once more gets harder to make visible.
Assange was right about everything that has been made falsifiable: secret indictment, spying on his lawyers, extradition to the US, no fair trial, the whole lot. He's showing every mental and physical sign of being tortured. He needs help, and he's being denied the very rights that western society purports to uphold.
EDIT: and that is leaving aside the whole dimension of Sweden, the UK, Equador, and of course the US making (even more of) a precedent out of him. What this means for the free press, and the relationship between freedom (of expression, of information, and in this case of truth, really) vs national "security" (in this case, the national security to not be held accountable for shooting down civilians) should send shivers down everyone's spines.
EDIT 2 To the people downvoting: care to express which part of the above exactly you disagree with? Do you think it's factually incorrect? How about correcting it then? Do you think it's inappropriate? Why so? Off topic?
It’s so far from the narrative we’ve been hearing for years now, than even reading your comment triggers a “that’s just some batshit conspiration theory” reaction on the moment.
Going through the link requires putting aside that reaction. I missed the link posted two weeks ago, and I am so glad you commented.
It’s really chilling and takes time to fully process.
There are things in the interview that are rather subjective (and things that are objective, and that I didn't know, admittedly). But this is ... quite misleading...:
> A constitutional democracy would probably investigate Chelsea Manning for violating official secrecy because she passed the video along to Assange. But it certainly wouldn’t go after Assange, because he published the video in the public interest, consistent with the practices of classic investigative journalism.
An investigative journalist wouldn't suggest to their source that they cover their trails and implicate innocent third parties in the egressing of confidential data[1], assist their source with cracking passwords, passively and actively ("I'm working on it, no luck yet"), or in the event that Assange was doing neither, just leading Manning on, would not lie to their sources while again, still encouraging them to break the law.
[1] by trying to crack someone else's password to use to get access to the same documents you're effectively _setting that person up_ as a patsy.
> a woman did NOT make a rape allegation against him in Sweden
The article you linked seems to contradict you. It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex, which would count as rape in my jurisdiction.
The article also recounts testimony of him waking up a woman by penetrating her which would also count as rape in my jurisdiction.
The article is not completely truthful about what happened, at least according to the police report. The interviewee claims to speak fluent Swedish, so there's no way he'd miss it accidentally. Here's the short version of what happened according to the official police investigation[0]:
Assange and a woman have consensual sex. He wants to have sex without a condom, she insist he wears one. Eventually he agrees, and they have sex and then fall asleep in the bed. The next morning she wakes up by him penetrating her. She asks "are you wearing anything?" to which he replies "you". Her main reason she wanted him to wear a condom was fear of STDs, so she thinks there's no point in stopping now since the eventual damage is already done, so they continue. He comes inside her.
When she later asks the police if there's a way of forcing Assange to take an HIV test the police decides that what she's describing constitutes rape, and starts an investigation.
The whole problem is that she gave her consent under the strict condition that he'd wear a condom. When he started having unprotected sex with her while she was sleeping, he didn't have her consent. Call that what you want.
Edit:
OK, I see that that's mentioned later in the article. But the part about rewriting the statement isn't completely truthful either:
> "Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W."
What the mail actually says is that there are two hearings, but only one formal one, and they want the second one included too. The supervisor writes: "Make a new hearing. Paste the text in that and assign the hearing to the case. Sign the hearing."
Assange attempted to appeal his extradition from the UK. One way to challenge that is to show that what you are being accused of isn't a crime in the UK. The UK High Court judgement is informative. What Assange is accused of (the 4 counts) would be crimes in the UK.
Just one bit from your linked article: “But in the morning, according to the revised statement, the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom.”. I'm sorry, Assange tried to penetrate a woman who was asleep?! That's not right
It's sad to see this conspiracy theory being voted to the top.
For HN, the only cause more motivating than functional programming seems to be accusing women of lying. With, in this case, often the gall to claim that this would somehow "protect real victims".
You are leaving out a LOT of the story in this post. Such as his connections with both the Russian state and the Trump campaign, or his person history of sexual misconduct and awful behaviour towards women.
He’s not being extradited for rape, he’s being extradited for being a Russian asset. The rape allegation being falsified could be completely accurate and still irrelevant to his crimes. He stopped being protected as a journalist a long time ago.
That link white washes Assange to an incredible level. Snowden was a hero, Assange is a Putin lackey who got caught.
Rape falls under public prosecution. That means that the prosecutor is forced to press charges whether the plaintiff wants it or not. According to the two women he did some questionable things that the prosecutor thought could be enough to convict him. The two women's stories are out in the open while Assange instead opted to flee the country and has not commented on the allegations.
What I think is a shame is that you are accusing these two women of being part of a smear campaign and/or a secret conspiracy to frame Assange when there is exactly zero evidence for that theory. We don't know what happened in those bedrooms - it's word against word. But the words of two people generally weighs heavier than the word of one. Especially when this one refused to be questioned by the police.
EDIT: It's fine if you downvote my comment or flag it. It's still true.
This is a growing problem. I'm not sure what the solution is, but something needs to be done to stem the absolute power that social media companies have to arbitrarily censor voices.
The solution to this seems pretty straightforward: force social media companies to choose to identify as a "platform" or a "publisher", rather than a mix of the two that gets to claim the most convenient aspects of both.
If they choose "platform", then they can take no responsibility for content posted, but also allow all content, and only remove content when it is required of them by the legal system (when the content is illegal and has been reported as such)
If they choose "publisher" then they are free to censor, "deplatform", delete, or restrict posting of anything they wish, but if someone posts something illegal, they take their share of legal responsibility for publishing it.
I think that decentralization has to be the solution. Having a handful of websites run by megacorps was not how the internet was meant to work. The fediverse around ActiviyPub is looking very promising. Mastodon is the most prominent service using it, and it has millions of users now. The experience is strictly superior to Twitter in my opinion. And there's no single central server on the network making it much harder to censor and manipulate Mastodon than centralized networks. There is no single company deciding what content can go on the network, and servers are hosted by regular people across many different countries.
Mastodon also allows for account verification, where the account can reference a specific website that's owned by the user. So, if a reputable source wants to have a verified account they can link it up with their site.
More protocols, fewer platforms. Significantly reducing the money in web advertising and especially the monetizability/utility of data by and about users is probably necessary for that to happen.
It's not for technical reasons that we stopped having a smallish number of viable standards with many implementations each, and started having many wholly incompatible and deliberately non-interoperable implementations of basically the same thing. I doubt Email could be invented today.
[EDIT] point is capturing and controlling communication is currently a top priority of big tech players, and that won't change until it is, one way or another, no longer highly rewarded—until then, every no-funds or paid-for-by-actual-users solution is competing with bottomless pockets and "free".
Doesn't WikiLeaks own and operate their own website? I don't think they're censored; I think a private company stopped giving them an open platform to spread their info for whatever reason.
The solution that is within everyone's reach is to choose to use simple blogging as platform for communication. The standards (RSS, HTML, HTTP etc) are open and if you keep the domain name within your control you will be much less vulnerable from de-platforming.
In what way can any social media company "censor" someone?
I don't read Twitter much. I still get plenty of information from Facebook, Podcasts, Hacker News, random blogs and websites, news websites, Discord chats, YouTube, etc.
Even if Twitter decided to kick out someone, all of those other avenues are available to them, some of which aren't under the control of almost anyone.
It feels to me like we're living in the age where it's absolutely easiest to "publish" anything at all you want, and yet people are constantly complaining how hard it is. I just don't get it, it seems factually wrong.
The solution is easy: full data portability laws that "backs up" into a centralized database (could be blockchain to avoid manipulation) - and then each platform sets its own rules, and users then can utilize the platform of choice for their UI and UX - design and governance.
The fediverse seems like a good start. Wikileaks should host their own instances of mastodon/diaspora etc, and we should stop participating in these centralized commercial enclaves expecting them to prioritize respecting and protecting our free speech on their web sites.
We need to handle the root cause. In case of US companies it has to do with anything the patriot act brought — something which should have been a temporary "boost" turned out to become the new status quo. Nobody will voluntarily cut these new powers of your services and it breeds a climate of anticipatory obedience within US companies that will be hard to get rid of even if the patriot act isn't extended again.
This problem can only be solved by electing fundamentally different actors into office.
Somehow to me the problem is that social networks are turning into implicit mobs, and that's surprisingly scary. The information highway became a confusion boulevard.
I don't see what responsibility social media companies have to host anyone's voice. They should be able to arbitrarily censor who they wish.
The issue comes from their massive reach and people's reliance on them for information. But this is more rooted in the monopolistic power companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google wield, and should be fixed accordingly. Not by limiting private entities' power to decide whom they want using their service.
Worth to mention that Brazil charged Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald with cybercrime charges similar to Assange.
The guy who first met Snowden in HK with Laura Poitras.
Even if it looks like they have "postponed" prosecution for now.
it's pretty sad to see otherwise extremely bright people who are able to spot censorship in China, Russia etc, and who normally would stand up for human rights, to applaud or defend this Twitter shut down of Wikileaks. It is exactly the goal of propaganda to give people the ability to spot its effects when it comes from the enemy and make it invisible when done by their own state.
"This is America" -- sings Childish Gambino (... actually this is Everywhere, thanks to global reach of US propaganda and the West alignment with US language in policy)
It's not enough for me not to use them. Everyone else must be made aware of what's going on so they don't get taken in by the manufactured false consensus.
[+] [-] black_puppydog|6 years ago|reply
Here's the interview: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
tl;dr:
Assange was right about everything that has been made falsifiable: secret indictment, spying on his lawyers, extradition to the US, no fair trial, the whole lot. He's showing every mental and physical sign of being tortured. He needs help, and he's being denied the very rights that western society purports to uphold.
EDIT: and that is leaving aside the whole dimension of Sweden, the UK, Equador, and of course the US making (even more of) a precedent out of him. What this means for the free press, and the relationship between freedom (of expression, of information, and in this case of truth, really) vs national "security" (in this case, the national security to not be held accountable for shooting down civilians) should send shivers down everyone's spines.
EDIT 2 To the people downvoting: care to express which part of the above exactly you disagree with? Do you think it's factually incorrect? How about correcting it then? Do you think it's inappropriate? Why so? Off topic?
[+] [-] gnomewascool|6 years ago|reply
I was planning to suggest submitting the link as its own "story" but apparently it already was, two weeks ago.[0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22201381
[+] [-] hrktb|6 years ago|reply
Going through the link requires putting aside that reaction. I missed the link posted two weeks ago, and I am so glad you commented.
It’s really chilling and takes time to fully process.
[+] [-] FireBeyond|6 years ago|reply
> A constitutional democracy would probably investigate Chelsea Manning for violating official secrecy because she passed the video along to Assange. But it certainly wouldn’t go after Assange, because he published the video in the public interest, consistent with the practices of classic investigative journalism.
An investigative journalist wouldn't suggest to their source that they cover their trails and implicate innocent third parties in the egressing of confidential data[1], assist their source with cracking passwords, passively and actively ("I'm working on it, no luck yet"), or in the event that Assange was doing neither, just leading Manning on, would not lie to their sources while again, still encouraging them to break the law.
[1] by trying to crack someone else's password to use to get access to the same documents you're effectively _setting that person up_ as a patsy.
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|6 years ago|reply
The article you linked seems to contradict you. It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex, which would count as rape in my jurisdiction.
The article also recounts testimony of him waking up a woman by penetrating her which would also count as rape in my jurisdiction.
[+] [-] sorenjan|6 years ago|reply
Assange and a woman have consensual sex. He wants to have sex without a condom, she insist he wears one. Eventually he agrees, and they have sex and then fall asleep in the bed. The next morning she wakes up by him penetrating her. She asks "are you wearing anything?" to which he replies "you". Her main reason she wanted him to wear a condom was fear of STDs, so she thinks there's no point in stopping now since the eventual damage is already done, so they continue. He comes inside her.
When she later asks the police if there's a way of forcing Assange to take an HIV test the police decides that what she's describing constitutes rape, and starts an investigation.
The whole problem is that she gave her consent under the strict condition that he'd wear a condom. When he started having unprotected sex with her while she was sleeping, he didn't have her consent. Call that what you want.
[0] https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/...
Edit: OK, I see that that's mentioned later in the article. But the part about rewriting the statement isn't completely truthful either: > "Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W."
What the mail actually says is that there are two hearings, but only one formal one, and they want the second one included too. The supervisor writes: "Make a new hearing. Paste the text in that and assign the hearing to the case. Sign the hearing."
[+] [-] rmc|6 years ago|reply
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
Just one bit from your linked article: “But in the morning, according to the revised statement, the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom.”. I'm sorry, Assange tried to penetrate a woman who was asleep?! That's not right
[+] [-] Bendingo|6 years ago|reply
And thanks for the interview link.
[+] [-] xkemp|6 years ago|reply
For HN, the only cause more motivating than functional programming seems to be accusing women of lying. With, in this case, often the gall to claim that this would somehow "protect real victims".
[+] [-] cheez|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DagAgren|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tw04|6 years ago|reply
That link white washes Assange to an incredible level. Snowden was a hero, Assange is a Putin lackey who got caught.
[+] [-] bjourne|6 years ago|reply
What I think is a shame is that you are accusing these two women of being part of a smear campaign and/or a secret conspiracy to frame Assange when there is exactly zero evidence for that theory. We don't know what happened in those bedrooms - it's word against word. But the words of two people generally weighs heavier than the word of one. Especially when this one refused to be questioned by the police.
EDIT: It's fine if you downvote my comment or flag it. It's still true.
[+] [-] jjordan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Notorious_BLT|6 years ago|reply
If they choose "platform", then they can take no responsibility for content posted, but also allow all content, and only remove content when it is required of them by the legal system (when the content is illegal and has been reported as such)
If they choose "publisher" then they are free to censor, "deplatform", delete, or restrict posting of anything they wish, but if someone posts something illegal, they take their share of legal responsibility for publishing it.
[+] [-] yogthos|6 years ago|reply
Mastodon also allows for account verification, where the account can reference a specific website that's owned by the user. So, if a reputable source wants to have a verified account they can link it up with their site.
[+] [-] karatestomp|6 years ago|reply
It's not for technical reasons that we stopped having a smallish number of viable standards with many implementations each, and started having many wholly incompatible and deliberately non-interoperable implementations of basically the same thing. I doubt Email could be invented today.
[EDIT] point is capturing and controlling communication is currently a top priority of big tech players, and that won't change until it is, one way or another, no longer highly rewarded—until then, every no-funds or paid-for-by-actual-users solution is competing with bottomless pockets and "free".
[+] [-] root_axis|6 years ago|reply
Imagine a world where any average citizen could host their own web page on the internet.
[+] [-] shadowgovt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mongol|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Traster|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edanm|6 years ago|reply
I don't read Twitter much. I still get plenty of information from Facebook, Podcasts, Hacker News, random blogs and websites, news websites, Discord chats, YouTube, etc.
Even if Twitter decided to kick out someone, all of those other avenues are available to them, some of which aren't under the control of almost anyone.
It feels to me like we're living in the age where it's absolutely easiest to "publish" anything at all you want, and yet people are constantly complaining how hard it is. I just don't get it, it seems factually wrong.
[+] [-] decasteve|6 years ago|reply
There is nothing forcing someone’s computer or smartphone from connecting. Just stop using it.
[+] [-] loceng|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newnewpdro|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atoav|6 years ago|reply
This problem can only be solved by electing fundamentally different actors into office.
[+] [-] agumonkey|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1f60c|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tree3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xwdv|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CryptoPunk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bart_spoon|6 years ago|reply
The issue comes from their massive reach and people's reliance on them for information. But this is more rooted in the monopolistic power companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google wield, and should be fixed accordingly. Not by limiting private entities' power to decide whom they want using their service.
[+] [-] _-___________-_|6 years ago|reply
Laptops in checked baggage? Seriously? I really cannot believe that Assange wouldn't know better than this.
[+] [-] john_minsk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viralpoetry|6 years ago|reply
Even if it looks like they have "postponed" prosecution for now.
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/06/glenn-greenwald-intercep...
[+] [-] app4soft|6 years ago|reply
Was there any story with WikiLeaks account on Mastodon?
[+] [-] persepoliisi|6 years ago|reply
I'm ditching twitter long time ago.. too much sensor and negativity from that company.
[+] [-] lkjhgfdsa0|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DyslexicAtheist|6 years ago|reply
"This is America" -- sings Childish Gambino (... actually this is Everywhere, thanks to global reach of US propaganda and the West alignment with US language in policy)
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Proven|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] clSTophEjUdRanu|6 years ago|reply
Twitter owes you nothing. Don't use them.
[+] [-] im3w1l|6 years ago|reply
So I will complain.
[+] [-] dontdoitpls|6 years ago|reply
But I also don't like Facebook's forced news.
Reddit is decent as long as the subreddit isn't big enough to be astroturfed... But big companies can do searches...
This place is probably the worst out of the social networks I use for censorship.
Snapchat is good
[+] [-] ycombonator|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sopra2k|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olliej|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gadders|6 years ago|reply