a k'wala
- mythicflow
- +4 diggs
- -0 / +4
Will Facebook delete these fake profiles like it does w/ activists' profiles that don't use real names? http://bit.ly/hxOgVh -- I bet that FB will (be made to) tolerate violations of it TOS by the US govt. Moral: If you don't want to reveal your identity on FB, create a profile w/ a fake persona that appears real.
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
Every org has its internal politics, and I'm sure Wikileaks is no exception. I doubt that we know the full story here. I don't see any evidence that their work has been compromised. However, those whose misbehavior and negligence their work exposes would want to propagate Assange's alleged foibles and indiscretions as the dominant story in order to distract from all that Wkileaks has been revealing about them.
One might argue that Assange isn't an appropriate public face for Wikileaks but, anyone who is the public face of such an org will be targeted the way he has been. Regardless of how unpleasant he may or may not be in person, he's the apparent driving force behind an enormous, ingenious and effective undertaking to expose the reality of the wars waged in our names -- the reality that our leaders would rather we not know. That is what is relevant, not the hearsay about Assange's personality.
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
I cannot argue that such an organization is necessary, I think we both agree. However the evidence that their work has been compromised has been in the news for the last week. Daniel Schmitt was not suspended just because. He was suspended because of statements and disagreements he had with Assange. And he was not just some disgruntled employee, he was the german representitive and the second most well known person in the organization. His exact apparently disgruntled statements are facts about how Assange is authoritarian (a dictator if you will). He is also not the first person to have this issue with the organization. But as you can see from digs and buries on this comment board, the vast majority of people do not care if they are being led by someone with an agenda, as long as the perceived cause is just (like Hitler). This is very blind.
- +91 diggs
- -10 / +101
- -12 diggs
- -15 / +3
Assange is a sociopath. Child sexual abuse is just that: child sexual abuse. There's no excuse. Whatever his org's agenda is, they'd be best to distance themselves from him if their message is really important.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
- -2 diggs
- -3 / +1
I totally disagree. Your statement totally depends on the influence Assange has on his own organization. If this was a very large public organization, then you would have even had a good likelihood to be correct in that they are immaterial to the org's work, but it is not. It is a very secretive, small organization. Assange may as well be Wikileaks and in that case, his personal life has everything to do with wikileaks. Note that when asked if he would step asside for someone else to steer in case of personal issues. He makes even that a personal issue. It is not, it is very important to the "cause" of wikileaks, but it is obvious that he would not relinquish "power".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
Every org has its internal politics, and I'm sure Wikileaks is no exception. I doubt that we know the full story here. I don't see any evidence that their work has been compromised. However, those whose misbehavior and negligence their work exposes would want to propagate Assange's alleged foibles and indiscretions as the dominant story in order to distract from all that Wkileaks has been revealing about them.
One might argue that Assange isn't an appropriate public face for Wikileaks but, anyone who is the public face of such an org will be targeted the way he has been. Regardless of how unpleasant he may or may not be in person, he's the apparent driving force behind an enormous, ingenious and effective undertaking to expose the reality of the wars waged in our names -- the reality that our leaders would rather we not know. That is what is relevant, not the hearsay about Assange's personality.
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
I cannot argue that such an organization is necessary, I think we both agree. However the evidence that their work has been compromised has been in the news for the last week. Daniel Schmitt was not suspended just because. He was suspended because of statements and disagreements he had with Assange. And he was not just some disgruntled employee, he was the german representitive and the second most well known person in the organization. His exact apparently disgruntled statements are facts about how Assange is authoritarian (a dictator if you will). He is also not the first person to have this issue with the organization. But as you can see from digs and buries on this comment board, the vast majority of people do not care if they are being led by someone with an agenda, as long as the perceived cause is just (like Hitler). This is very blind.
mythicflowFeb 24, 2012
Celebrate 22 years of fighting for digital freedom by wearing your EFF swag to work on Thursday, March 8!