
Macron emails leaked by wikileaks - subroutine
https://wikileaks.org/macron-emails/
======
go13
I wonder why we never had any info on Le Pen, Trump or Russia from there?

~~~
Luc
Haha, guys, come on. 'It's because Putin doesn't use email', sure, sure.
'Nothing to leak', indeed! Putin, Le Pen, Trump - paragons of ethical
behaviour, squeaky clean. /s

Wikileaks publishes whatever the GRU feeds them, with gusto.

~~~
moneytalks
Trump can't take a leak without it getting leaked. Panama papers were equal
opportunity... the leaks seem pretty well equal opportunity.

~~~
actsasbuffoon
Wikileaks did not publish the Panama Papers, and in fact accused them of being
part of an anti-Russian conspiracy.

------
dagenleg
It's so incredibly annoying that every time there's a news article about
wikileaks people start crying about its bias and Russian spies. Even if Satan
himself feeds them info, so what? What matters is the truthfulness of their
leaks.

It seem to me like a lot of people avoid attacking the verasity of the leaks
themselves but focus only on the 'Putin connection', which is of course a much
easier thing to do.

Well, hey, it's modern world politics, where it's not the objective truth that
really matters or the argumentation, it's a 'who can shout the loudest'
contest instead.

~~~
archagon
No, screw that approach. Truth is not just a collection of facts; it's also
the point cloud that the facts create. Even if your information is 100%
accurate, you can still generate incredibly potent misinformation by
selectively releasing some facts and retaining others. It's bias laundering,
and it creates propaganda that's substantially more difficult to discredit
than the old-school, lie-based kind. We should really know better, but I
suppose it plays to our human weaknesses.

I say that _every_ time WikiLeaks comes up, "Assange should not be trusted"
needs to be the top comment. No different than a "view at your own discretion"
label.

~~~
vim_wannabe
Out of interest: who _could_ be trusted with releasing accurate facts but not
withholding any?

The 17 intelligence agencies?

97% of scientists?

~~~
archagon
> _The 17 intelligence agencies?_

Probably not.

> _97% of scientists?_

Probably yes.

Also, news organizations with transparency and decades-old reputations, e.g.
the BBC. But certainly not a secretive <s>anarchist</s> libertarian
organization with an egomaniac leader[1] and questionable political
connections.

[1]: [https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-
ohagan/ghosting](https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting)

~~~
moneytalks
BBC is paid for by the British government, that is, politicians or oversight
orgs that report to politicians. For-profit news agencies are simply delivery
mechanisms for advertisements run by mostly large conglomerate corps. News
happens to be their niche to get eyeballs on the advertisements that pays the
bills -- porn tubes and cnn have more in common than we'd like to accept.
Additionally to the extent they need licenses for the public airwaves or
access to governmental officials, they are influenced by those.

Decades-old reputation matters nothing compared to the current leadership
being beholden to those who hold the pursestrings.

The best that can be hoped for is the powers influencing the news somehow
balance each other out enough for a modicum of truth to leak through.

~~~
archagon
Bias does not necessarily follow from "paid for by the... government", "run by
mostly large conglomerate corps", and "need licenses for the public airwaves".
Most everything good is paid for by someone or some group; journalists don't
have the means to do their reporting for free.

Ultimately you have to use your own judgement, but if your preferred news
organizations have a history of hiring honest and reputable journalists and
providing unbiased coverage (especially if it targets institutions of power)
then I think heuristically you can leave them in your "trusted source" folder.

In the worst case scenario, I suppose you can just follow your favorite
journalists and rely on personal trust and reputation.

------
subroutine
Is there a wikileak bias or do conservatives have better infosec?

~~~
Super_Jambo
Worth reading Julian Assange's blog on the purpose of wikileaks.

[http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf](http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-
conspiracies.pdf)

To me the answer is that America's current "Left wing" is more in-line with
the American Neoliberal world dominance agenda. Meanwhile Americas
conservatives where they promote American dominance do so in public.
Republican candidates debated candidly about how much they'd like the "bad
guys" to get tortured. Meanwhile the DNCs favoured candidate got big donations
from the defence industry and Saudi Arabia whilst talking about how important
human rights are.

Wikileaks project is about attacking powerful in-groups deception of voters.
All leaks help this cause by increasing the info-sec cost of conspiracy. But
if the in-groups private messaging is in line with their publicly stated
positions then what's there to leak?

~~~
moomin
This answer would make sense if Wikileaks were the source of the leaks. As it
is, they're not, so their motives don't really come into it.

Besides, I'm pretty sure what DTjr did would qualify as eminently leakable.

~~~
Super_Jambo
This is good point, although we don't know if WL is getting right wing stuff
and just not leaking it.

~~~
moomin
You'd have to assume that a) WL ran such a tight ship you'd never heard a hint
of it, which seems unlikely b) the suppliers of the information didn't try
anyone else, which also seems unlikely.

------
odc
It seems 90% of the emails are just newsletters (LeMonde, Korben, Google
Alerts...). It would have been so easy to remove those!

~~~
grp
Rather 40% newsletters, 40% expense reports ( _note de frais_ ).

------
Overtonwindow
Here we go again.

------
dsfyu404ed
Please don't post direct links to Wikileaks or any other site that hosts
leaked classified material (even if the link is not to classified material).

By posting a direct link you are excluding the people who have the most well
informed opinions on the subject.

Even just linking to a clickbait piece that provides a link to the source
material is better.

~~~
subroutine
Appologies. I reposted to an ABC piece. Question though... how does this
exclude people who are already well informed from commenting on this forum?
And how does a clickbait article rectify this?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Thank you.

A little more detail.

Anyone working for the gov't, a gov't contractor, the defense industry or
other industries requiring a clearance would do well to avoid this stuff.
Being able to honestly answer "I've read the third party analysis but haven't
seen more than quotes from the docs myself" makes life easier if the person
administering your poly decides to ask about that sort of stuff.

Linking directly to wikileaks also means that nobody working in those
environments will read your article while at work or using a work device.
While you might not get asked about it depending on where you work it's just
unprofessional. It's like visiting a link to a tech article published by
Pornhub's blog.

By giving those groups a reason to avoid the topic you eliminate a lot of
potential for transfer of useful information. Little tidbits like "the author
says X but in my experience Y" add up to a large amount of knowledge transfer
that we probably don't want to exclude from this site

~~~
subroutine
Thanks, I thought it was bullshit, but now I know for sure.

------
throwawaymanbot
I'll be more interested in truthfulness of leaks when Assange leaks Putins
emails.

