[Applejinx]

Seconded. I realize this is (probably as a direct consequence!) a contentious position, but I'm concerned that Wikileaks is as much an arm of an imperialist state actor as Russia's Internet Research unit. And, like it, a more effective weapon than the actual deteriorating military of the state… and accordingly in heavy, aggressive use.

Since I'm not interested in seeing Russia win anything but 'best dubtechno the world will ever see' I'm not interested in seeing Wikileaks prosper. It's a bit of a litmus test to me: I'm suspicious of anyone who passionately supports something like it, or 'Q', and so on. It is of great importance to the Russian imperialist effort.

[pessimizer]

It's simply a bad position. You've characterized all of Wikileaks by the one leak that upset your party, the (at the time) ruling party of a hegemonic state.

Do you have anything other than the leaks about the Democrats as evidence of anything? Have you surveyed Wikileaks materials and seen evidence of the evil Russian hand in anything except your own personal grievance, which is that your party lost an election, partially because its process was shown to be corrupt?

Wikileaks hasn't even added any material since then, but somehow it's been relentlessly working for Putin.

[aa-jv]

What a nonsense narrative. You don't get to choose which corruption is more morally substantive than the other.

America is the worlds #1 funder of terrorism. How about we start addressing that, as elite members of the 1%?

[vegai_]

Completely irrelevant. The relevant thing is that the West need not tolerate pro-Russia entities, especially in these times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Funding them would be completely ludicrous, as smart as sawing the branch you're sitting on.