I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of:
"I'm not an Assange supporter But ..."
in fact you're comment is really no different:
> not supporting what Assange did, I didn't
Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?
Edit: In fact prefacing with "I'm not an Assange supporter but..." sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument in support of him/against the US/UK governments more weight, ie, even people who aren't the usual suspect fans of his are disturbed by what's going on.
People do this all the time on any subject, it's a weak rhetorical device. "I'm not one to support Javascript but", "I don't normally disagree with @pmachinery but".
We should just try to make our point without trying to artificially weigh it with rhetoric.
I have complex views of Assange.
1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial.
2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies.
3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal.
It seems like he has taken an anti-American stance and acted intentionally to undermine the US, presumably because he sees the US as the most hypocritical geopolitical actor.
He may be accurate in his assessment, but the adversaries of the US who will exploit the power vacuum are Russia and China, who are either worse or at least as bad as the US when it comes to secrets and lies, and so it’s not at all obvious that his tactics support his goal. I’d like to hope that they ultimately do cause some kind of positive realignment, but that is not a foregone conclusion.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting. Again, it’s not clear that this is a helpful move, but maybe it is.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist.
Assange is not a journalist, nor is he a reporter. Bear with me - this is a ‘pro Assange’ point.
He is a publisher with an intelligence gathering network.
Recognizing this doesn’t mean it’s right that he should be prosecuted.
In fact it sheds light on something more sinister - actual journalists don’t report the things that Assange published, because their publishers don’t want them to.
Publishers in general are self-censoring in order to stay on good terms with governments and other powerful interests.
Organizations calling Assange a ‘journalist’, especially any mainstream publishers, are actually colluding to deflect attention from this fact, and co-opting support for Assange, when in fact they are collaborating with governments and are the very reason Wikileaks was necessary in the first place.
Reducing what’s going on to ‘Assange as martyr’, ‘look at this kangaroo court’, ‘This is about silencing journalists’, does nothing to advance Assange’s actual goal.
I think the comparison is not exactly right, Wikileaks is very far from being a media empire, and Assange is very far from using it as a tool in his own interest. In my opinion, calling Assange a journalist is like calling a news room editor a journalist, as in: he is one.
However I disagree with your reframing. News room editors answer to the publisher (I.e. whoever owns the publishing organization), and generally have been promoted from the ranks of journalists.
None of that is true about Assange. He was never a journalist and never did investigative reporting, or any of the other things a journalist normally does.
He did not answer to a publisher. He built and controlled the publishing platform, and therefore is a publisher.
He was a publisher who was willing not to self-censor.
If we incorrectly call Assange a journalist, and we say that he served the public good by ‘reporting’ what other journalists would not, then we are laying the blame for the lack of accountability in our society at the feet of journalists.
That’s just not accurate.
Assange has only been able to accomplish anything because he is a publisher. Journalists simply cannot do what he did, because they answer to publishers.
Assange is not a journalist. He is a publisher.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/16/pentagon-papers-ellsberg-...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
They talk about Wikileaks, his publishing organization, working as a peer in cooperation with the NYT, the Guardian, and other publishers. They describe his priorities and concerns and the protocols he wanted to use.
All of these are consistent with Assange as the creator of Wikileaks standing as a publisher.
Also, that testimony looks very good for Assange.
I'm pretty sure I read in the articles covering the hearings that some journalist organizations were claiming he is one. Found a mention in day 8 of the hearings reporting (search for mentions of Chelsea Manning): https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
I’m not arguing that he’s not involved in editorial decisions.
I am arguing that it’s misleading to call him a journalist. That’s not why he matters.
People are calling him a journalist because they hope it will save his life. I hope it does too.
I just think that if we care about his overall goal, we should see him as a publisher - because that’s the work he has done that matters.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting
This does not make sense to me and seems to amount to blaming Assange for the hunt he was subjected to.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
So the US and the UK are persons with their own feelings that we should respect ?
I’m not blaming Assange for what he’s being subjected to.
On the other hand I also don’t think he or anyone else would imagine that there wouldn’t be a response to a perceived threat.
I may agree with him that we should live in a society that lives up to its ideals.
However we both know it doesn’t, and national security fears over whistleblowers are not necessarily unfounded.
I’m not suggesting he’s to blame for an unfair trial. However it’s also clear that he knew his actions would be seen as anti-American, and indeed I presume he would stand by those actions and that assessment of America. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that he finds himself in this position. In many ways this confirms what he has been saying. The question is - is this choice of his going to move us in a positive direction?
I am quite unsure of that.
I agree that we need more words for the concept of gaslighting- there are lots of nuances around it.
As for ‘insecurities’ I do mean that as a psychological analogy, but I think it’s a good way to look at it.
I’m not arguing that we should respect the U.K. or the US as people who have feelings.
I’m saying that like a person with insecurities, there are actions which elicit a threat response from countries.
I’m also saying that, just like a person, these may or may not be reflective of reality. If they are, then a defensive response is appropriate, even if incongruent with our higher ideals for who the person or country aspires to be.
Everyone sucks here?
I can't speak for anybody else, but I consider it a valid worry
Ok perhaps not FBI breaking down your door at 3am, but for sure "earn your place" on a list, in some three-letter-dept, and your name will stay there forever. And one day, on your way back from vacation to country XYZ that is not the favorite of the sitting (at the time) president you may be greeted by people in uniforms wanting to scan you laptop, phone, etc.
It has happened before, so yes it is a valid worry.
But it remains a fact that he chose to spill damaging information about one side and not the other, even though he had information on both. Unfortunately for him, the side he helped turns out to be just as eager for his head on a pike as the other would have been.
He hated Clinton since the diplomatic cable leak, and wanted to damage her, but never thought Trump would win.
Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.
The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.
Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact.
Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with the Assange case is the Russia-gate propaganda added him to the list, so now a large swath of people who would normally support him now still off the cuff beleive he "helped Trump" by "working with the Russians" (or some variation thereof), and because the Russiagate narrative is now so entrenched in the left, it causes a huge cognitive dissonance where they are more likely to choose the mob/tribe over principle. It's worth noting that this can also be considered a survival technique in this cancel culture world, so I try not to judge too harshly, it just gets tiring hearing the disinfo about Assange repeated ad nauseum.
It's obvious that the RussiaGate campaign is really a smear campaign used to take down enemies left and right if you pay close attention, e.g. used against Bernie Sanders who is obviously not a Russian shill, but I wish someone would put together a sourced timeline detailing the nature of the campaign, as I've got so many smart friends who fell for it and can't be convinced otherwise in a two minute discussion over cocktails.
I have often found creating just basic timelines (just org files with dates as headings) has really helped me understand and find novel insights into issues of a convtroversial nature, so I think you are on to something.
This will generate from textual data I believe.
Are you crazy? Why WOULDN'T you be worried about that?