this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1160 points (100.0% liked)

People Twitter

6514 readers
1355 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago (4 children)
[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 34 points 7 months ago

So they were already cc’d on them.

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

No, the whole "Wikileaks is a Russian asset" story is a farce used to unjustly discredit them, since they've published some extremely damning documents.

[–] Bananigans@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It might be because RT gave Assange his talk show on state run tv, RT claimed WikiLeaks as a partner, Assange dumped the 2016 emails after Trump's "Russia if your listening" statement, or because after Assange claimed the hacker that provided WikiLeaks with those 2016 emails wasn't Russian, he was.

If you step back and squint, it kind of looks like he was working with Russia because of all the work with Russia.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, that’s not entirely true. Yeah, there has been a long history of US based organizations, particularly governmental ones, trying to stop Wikileaks, capture Snowden, and generally just punish whistleblowers so brutally is deters anyone else from doing it.

But that doesn’t mean that as the years went on, the mission of Wikileaks changed as they seemed to adopt a particular goal that wasn’t just “shining a light on corruption.”

So it’s not as simple as “it’s a Russian asset” and it’s not as simple as “they’re being smeared for spilling govt secrets.” It’s a mixture of the two, but not only, and not entirely.

[–] SLfgb@feddit.nl 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're right, it does not mean the mission of WikiLeaks changed. It clearly hasn't. They still have never had to retract a single document or story.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But weren’t some of the Clinton email leaks proven to be planted?

[–] SLfgb@feddit.nl 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
  1. The Clinton emails were first released by the State Department under FOIA. (WikiLeaks were first to publish the different archives of the Podesta email leak and the DNC email leak.) Both WL and the Wall Street Journal each made the Clinton emails into a searchable database.
  2. WikiLeaks has never had to retract a single document or story.
[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Ah, I was confusing the fact that the right wing internet trolls planted faked emails among the Wikileaks dump. Misremembered

[–] SLfgb@feddit.nl 3 points 7 months ago

Totally. It is a complete farce.

[–] ealoe@ani.social 4 points 7 months ago

Yes and no; technically they're an independent entity but they've been used as useful idiots by Russian intelligence so many times at this point they're effectively Russian

[–] SLfgb@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago