

Wikileaks reveals Reddit Cofounder Alexis Ohanian emailed with Stratfor - ockla
http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=282044

======
grandalf
I used to be a subscriber to Stratfor, and have enjoyed George Friedman's
books. He presents a very interesting, Geopolitical perspective.

A bit of Friedman's personal political leanings "leaked" into his
books/essays, but they are interesting enough that I was able to ignore it.

I don't see anything in the info on Wikileaks that makes me consider Ohanian's
conduct remotely inappropriate.

FWIW the Geopolitical perspective Friedman advocates in his books is perfectly
useful as a tool for analysis and does not dictate any particular approach to
governance or diplomacy.

~~~
Questioneer
Unless you read Friedman's emails where he elaborates on his personal approach
of bypassing multiple nation's laws via paid inside informants.

Undermining governance, diplomacy, while promoting corruption.

But by all means take the public facing statements as they are crafted.

~~~
grandalf
My comments are as a reader of Friedman's writing (his books and via his
subscription-only website).

------
theli0nheart
I really don't see the big deal. Alexis is just sending a nice follow-up email
to someone who wanted to chat with him. This is grasping for straws.

EDIT: My comment was previously under the assumption that Wikileaks was
posting linkbait, but that role falls to the OP of this submission, not
Wikileaks. Sorry!

~~~
kn0thing
In the spirit of total transparency, I have published all of _my own_ emails
for the meeting with Stratfor and all subsequent emails:
[http://imgur.com/a/oZHt1](http://imgur.com/a/oZHt1)

What you'll find will bore you:

RECAP: I have never worked for Stratfor, I've tweeted screenshots from my
inbox with every exchange -- they invited me to their office during SXSW, I
got a tour and they asked me for a quote to consult, so I gave it to them, but
it went nowhere. We hadn't talked since.
[https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/372033348052340736](https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/372033348052340736)
[https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/372028024532643841](https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/372028024532643841)
[https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/372008427528396801](https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/372008427528396801)

I'd been a big fan because no one else reported on Caucasus as well and I was
living in Armenia at the time. When the Wikileaks revelation happened years
later, I did not renew my subscription.

Here's a bonus upload of a program from a panel at Booz Allen I was on (that
was a paid gig) in 2007. [http://imgur.com/MXtxvEZ](http://imgur.com/MXtxvEZ)

Nonetheless, Adrian Chen wanted an interview, so here it is:
[http://imgur.com/MVZR0ay](http://imgur.com/MVZR0ay)

~~~
MysticFear
Love your Small Empires show. Most people when interviewing entrepreneurs
don't go into how their product/service looked like at the very beginning. It
gives great insight. Keep it going!

[http://www.theverge.com/video/small-
empires](http://www.theverge.com/video/small-empires)

~~~
kn0thing
Thank you very much, MysticFear! It's been loads of fun to do and the Verge
production team is top shelf. I'll keep focusing on those early days, been
hearing that a lot -- there's a lot more additional footage I hope makes it
into a VHX bundle when the season is done.

------
ianhawes
Alexis appears to be heavily denying it on his twitter [1] along with
releasing subsequent e-mails [2][3]. Looks like this is another Wikileaks
publicity stunt.

[1] [https://twitter.com/alexisohanian](https://twitter.com/alexisohanian)

[2] [http://imgur.com/ZPLyoiP,KnwpYHc#0](http://imgur.com/ZPLyoiP,KnwpYHc#0)

[3] [http://imgur.com/hl8lpMY](http://imgur.com/hl8lpMY)

~~~
throwssss
Then why would the mods remove it from r/worldnews?

[http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1l49n0/](http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1l49n0/)

~~~
corin_
Because it's their subreddit and they can do what they like? Maybe they didn't
consider it worthy to be called "world news". Maybe they saw his denials,
realised it's a false story and deleted for that reason. Or maybe they did it
to protect him, which would be wrong, but doesn't mean he is "guilty" of
consulting for them.

------
revelation
Apart from Ohanian whoring himself out as a "something with social media"
consultant, there seems to be nothing here.

Personally, I regurarly read the free releases from Stratfor and they are
usually well written and insightful, in a very factual stlye, a far cry from
the hyper-partisan incomplete information presented by NYT and others.
Wikileaks beef with them just seems completely misplaced; a desperate attempt
to hype the material that has been given to them.

~~~
kn0thing
Haha. Thanks. Yeah I really enjoyed those Stratfor reports while I was in
Armenia. I published everything in my own inbox on twitter, shared to
reddit/fb/evenG+ and now here...
[https://www.facebook.com/alexis.ohanian/posts/10101092121771...](https://www.facebook.com/alexis.ohanian/posts/10101092121771026)

------
rospaya
I'm not OK with stealing state secrets, but I enjoy reading them on Wikileaks,
but stealing and leaking private correspondence? That's plain wrong,
especially when Stratfor is being presented as a shadowy CIA-like
organization.

------
hansjorg
> bring in the social media dollars

What does this mean in the context of Stratfor? Selling psyops?

------
state
Could someone elaborate on the significance of this?

~~~
runjake
There isn't anything significant about this, except that STRATFOR is disliked
by some people in the various technical communities.

But, in fact, STRATFOR wears several hats, some I find good and some I find
less than tasteful. This doesn't implicate Alexis in any unethical activities
imho.

------
zokier
So the question that immediately rises from this mess is that didn't WL have
the rest of the mails (which were pasted upthread), or did they intentionally
release these without context?

------
ferdo
Though surprised by the proof, I'm not surprised by the gist.

------
colmvp
I noticed on his signature that he writes: Hipmunk: principal, marketing

What does principal mean in this context?

------
runn1ng
.....so?

------
batlag1974
Does this mean Reddit is tampered?

~~~
PedroBatista
No.

------
Questioneer
Remember "Stratcap" folks. The organization made to funnel insider info into
other nations where it would be profited off of, I believe JP Morgan or some
other shady company was to be the financial backer.

Then the "terrorists" wikileaks helped expose it all.

Bonus snippet from the leak:

On Jul 23, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Don Kuykendall <kuykendall@stratfor.com> wrote:

"We blamed everything on the lawyers. The result will be a frustrating
StratCap and Service agreement that you and Bruce will vomit over. So be it.
George, Shea and I are on the same wave length and are willing to have loose
ends in the contract to get the business deal done. The three of us have an
understanding that goes beyond whatnots in the future that might happen. If we
can't trust each other, then things are going to fail regardless what the
contract reads. StratCap and STRATFOR are the same investment to Shea, George
and me."

[1]
[http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releasedate/2012-02-27-00-strat...](http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releasedate/2012-02-27-00-stratfor-
hedge-fund-entity-stratcap.html)

edit: I cannot for the life of me figure out why this would be down-voted. Was
it the syntax, grammar? Was it highlighting one of Stratfor's own emails about
StratCap and Stratfor being considered one and the same? The cultivation of
insider info paid for, then 'laundered' offshore for for-profit use while
those involved also get a cut of the profits?

Beuller?

edit edit: I would honestly appreciate input to whoever does the negative
votes, sometimes sprees. In some instances in which I vote down myself I
cannot fathom down-voting without adequately explaining why the to user.

~~~
consonants
This is easily the most insightful post in this thread, it is unfortunate that
anyone downvoted you.

~~~
Questioneer
_shrugs_

Sorry for not fully elaborating on the subject as it is convoluted and mostly
easily searchable with the keywords I've already listed.

To further discussion, what did you find insightful in context to this parent
thread's topic? I can only begin to imagine the possibilities to access what
is moderated and what is not. What is your opinions?

edit: How is consonants doing? I am a bit down at seeing the same actors in
the news again doing their same shifty acts. I have always assumed headlines
like NSA/Snowden would have a damper on the will to start-up business or
innovate a new industry but never considered the change in tone it would have
on HN users in general.

