To my view Wikileaks is now undeniably a sophisticated trolling operation.
I’'m curious on other members views.
One of the few actual journalist organizations left in the western world.
Any actual journalism I’m sure could also be given the label “sophisticated trolling operation”. The US government certainly thinks so.
1 Like
How do you feel about the optics of it appearing to blatantly support both the alt-right agenda and russian at the same time?
For reference:
US far-right activists, WikiLeaks and bots help amplify Macron leaks: Researchers
It is shit. I think they have lost their credibility unfortunately. It isn’t what it was, hasn’t been for a while. 
2 Likes
Wikileaks publishes leaks. I’m not a particular fan of their personal views but so long as they publish leaks they are doing their job. The unfortunate side-effect is that they essentially don’t discriminate, and will equally well take leaks from whistleblowers working for citizens as well as state actors trying to damage other nations (for example).
The solution is just more leaks, more often, to more institutions. A lot of journalism outfits now have securedrop, and it should now be fairly easy to start dropping good data in the public interest to these institutions. Wikileaks is “limited” in the respect that it, too, must leak the information given to other institutions. Because Wikileaks publishes leaks. It would stop existing if it did not.
4 Likes
I used to be a big fan / believer in Wikileaks. But to me it is now firmly pushing an agenda in both its selection of leaks and timing.
In speaking to someone from the people who actually did the Panama leaks, there is a very poor view of Wikileaks for journalistic integrity. This is from actual hardcore journalists exposing fraud and corruption.
I worry about people who loved Wikileaks and flipped over Trump. Wikileaks has always been about exposing corruption and wrongdoing. That still holds true if it’s corruption by allegedly centre-left campaigns. If Trump benefited from the DNC leaks then Wikileaks was a catalyst, not the cause. The cause was corruption of the Dems nomination process and their insistence on running a horrible candidate.
I think the agenda was to expose the lesser evil as still evil but not necessarily to empower the greater evil. The outcome didn’t have to be Trump’s election. It could have been a US Spring uprising demanding a preferential voting system, or a total boycott of both major parties, or all parties, or any number of other things.
I think in some misguided way Wikileaks might be attempting to build credibility with the mainstream as a non-partisan actor. Either that or just desperately trying to remain relevant as a social gadfly to the great horse of power. It may be driven by arrogant narcissism but I seriously doubt they’ve been co-opted by Russia and the alt-right.
At first glance the Macron leaks appeared to support the right, but they were spread after the 48hr media blackout started when they would have minimal impact on the election. It seems more like an inside job aimed at playing victim, building support, and drumming up resentment of Russia and hackers. Especially when they immediately roll out lines like “yet another dangerous escalation of cyber interference in a Western nation’s democracy.”
Any time we look at clandestine operations like hacking and intelligence, it is hard to sort out fact from fiction.
It was IMO most likely hackers working either directly for Russia or with their turning a blind eye. En Marche are a new political organisation, having weak security wouldn’t be suprising. Also being a new organisation, I seriously doubt their capability of pulling off such a Machiavellian self leak for what benefit?
It could be the US trying to discredit Russia, but it seems unlikely to have happened without it having been ordered by the very top of the US command structure, like Trump himself. Having probably benefited from Russian interference, and more importantly, having been accused of benefiting from Russian hacking, I don’t see him doing that. If Trump moved against Russia, he would want it public so he would be able to brag about it to build up deniability for the investigation into Russian influence in the US election.
The DNC leaks may have come from a disgruntled Democrats employee, I don’t know. I gave Wikileaks the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Is the Macron ‘leak’ a legitimate leak?
There Are No “Macron Leaks” in France. Politically Motivated Hacking Is Not Whistleblowing.
I think you can get the gist from the headline.
I don’t think Wikileaks jumping on the leaks was a good look, it adds weight to the theory that they are becoming an agent for Russia / the far right. I am not convinced either way yet (I don’t ever feel a need to commit to a position when things are so murky), I still follow the account, I just don’t give it the same benefit of the doubt that I used to. I am more wary these days.
1 Like
Life goals.
You need better life goals.
It seems like this might favour political organizations with radically open, democratic and transparent processes.
Which political party do we know of that’s like that?
Oh right, it’s us.
1 Like
Frankly, Wikileaks has been a joke since it became “The Julian Assange Show” back in 2011-12.
They are not a journalistic outlet (granted, they never claimed to be) ostensibly they exist as a conduit between leakers and “appropriate” (based on content) journalists to get the information out, however they have now effectively hijacked the flow of information and are using it as leverage to push an agenda.
It has never been a truly transparent organisation and that issue has only compounded over the past 5 years or so.
I wouldn’t characterise them as a “trolling operation” as I’d be surprised if they didn’t have some end goal in mind (whereas trolling is pretty much by definition “for the lulz”), but I’d also not characterise them as being fit for their stated purpose.
1 Like
It was always the Julian Assange show. It’s just that he finally got caught out by his own dick … again. It was only ever going to be a matter of time and those of us who remembered the shit he got up to in the '90s knew it. People didn’t see it coming because they didn’t want to see it coming.
The Mad Proffessor [sic] went mad, what a shock.
I’d support Wikileaks if it was an organisation that had a team of respected neutral journalists and lawyers releasing stuff that easily meet the defintition of “in public interest” and redacting and protecting rest.
Right now it is more like one dude who doesn’t like the establishment and has become a Russian mouthpiece.
Is there a place for a journalistic organisation willing to protect both wisthleblowers and governments who’s secrets are leaked? Yes. Is Wikileaks it? Most definately no.
I met one of the Journalists from the ICIJ - who did the Panama Papers. Basically respected journalists, top of their field, put a lot of effort into checking information they publish.
It seemed they did not have a high opinion on Wikileaks for integrity. This was before the Russia and anti-Hillary stuff.