[206lol]

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuinely ok for someone to draw the conclusion that, "given the criticism, I cannot support them".

Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".

[headsoup]

I think that's why people need to look past the character and heresays and look at the facts and processes.

Ignore Assange's character, make him an anonymous person instead and think "is the process X person has gone through for Y actions reasonable/legal/supportable?"

Should whistleblowers be supported or vilified?

[kspacewalk2]

Ignore Assange's character, focus on leaks of dubious, probably state actor origin, precisely timed in their release. Focus on which state propaganda network hosted his show, whom he met with in the embassy, etc.

[kerkeslager]

> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things.

Are they? What's the "evil" you're accusing them of? If you're going to accuse people of things, don't be vague.

[EngManagerIsMe]

I assume things like:

a) Alleged sexual assault of staffers (which again, alleged, but could be considered evil)

b) Leaking of personal information that is of no public interest, e.g. unredacted SSNs

c) Leaking private medical records of otherwise ordinary individuals, including e.g. medical records of teenagers who were raped

d) Leaking the names of people who are LGBTQ+ in dictatorial countries where that's illegal, putting their lives in danger

e) Timing the release of DNC hack is arguable, but I could see how someone might consider the timing of that release to be evil

f) There's some antisemitic stuff happening with Assange/Wikileaks. There's nothing like, glaringly out of line, but there's a whooole lot of stuff that's just over the line. (e.g. use of (((name))), calling his opponents "Jewish" media, employing holocaust denier and denying it, etc)

g) Assange himself is quoted as saying, "[We might] have blood on our hands" due to their editorial policy of publishing everything, unredacted, about potentially vulnerable people

[naasking]

> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things

What evil things, specifically?

[monetus]

“Rep. Dana Rohrabacher told Assange “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr. Assange ... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks,” The Daily Beast reported.

He got stiffed in that respect, but he did achieve his specific goal of tanking Clinton's campaign.

Old interview of him talking about it: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/25/exclusive_wikileaks_j...

[zzzeek]

He preferred the election of Donald Trump and worked to make that happen.

His preferences in specific political outcomes are well known:

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...

So yes, that would be why $politicalside doesn't like him, because he aligned with a very specific, pro-fascist $politicalside (whether or not he is actually a fascist).

downmod away folks but that's why $politicalside doesnt like Assange. He is extremely biased which makes the "journalist" angle look pretty weak. there's your answer

[snehk]

They did thing an and thing a was considered to be okay when one political party benefitted from a. The exact same thing a was then considered to be bad when it didn't benefit that party anymore. It's quite simple. If you didn't criticize me when he first started doing a and even cheered him on and then turn around when the exact same things don't benefit you anymore, don't claim that you were ever cheering him on for the action itself.