
Julian Assange: Why I Founded WikiLeaks - CorsairSanglot
http://www.newsweek.com/julian-assange-why-i-founded-wikileaks-294283
======
xnull2guest
This goes to some lengths to explain why Assange is willing to publish
anything, no matter how damaging in the short term it may be to particular
interests.

He doesn't want to be a curator or a decision maker about what information is
or is not available. He is interested in solving the architectural problem of
_removing_ the ability to having political interests or personal bias
influence control what gets published. From his perspective, he is merely a
cog in that system he's trying to create - an automaton who doesn't get to
make decisions about the content of diplomatic cables, etc.

In this sense it's probably better to think of Assange as an engineer as
opposed to a journalist, dissident or politician. It's just that this system
he's been trying to create crosses those circles - when the system effects
knowledge/power relations and to the degree his system is successful what's
left to do is to effect Wikileaks.

Another note: I am in agreement with and happy that Assange recognizes that
Wikileaks in a young and incomplete prototype. There are tons of operational
questions left: Who gets Wikileaks when Assange passes away? How do you vet a
new member? How do you prevent bribery? Isn't it a problem that there is any
centralized control of Wikileaks to begin with? Countries have been successful
in preventing journalists from partnering with Wikileaks - how does one secure
that pipeline?

~~~
steve19
Nonsense. Assange goes to great lengths to spin his political agenda. For
example the "Collateral Murder" video. He did not publish raw source material,
he published his narrative:

[http://www.collateralmurder.com/](http://www.collateralmurder.com/)

He is no Snowden. Snowden was upfront and honest from the start about what he
was trying to achieve.

I used to admire Assange, now Assange is caught up in his own myth and he
seems desperate to keep that myth alive.

The world needs a WikiLeaks 3.0, one that looks like the original 1.0 (the
actual wiki before the cable leaks). For those of you that forgot what it was
originally:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20080102184708/http://www.wikile...](https://web.archive.org/web/20080102184708/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks)

~~~
caractacus
There's a wonderful article[1] in London Review of Books in which Andrew
O'Hagan, hired to be Assange's ghost writer, gradually becomes convinced -
from a position of admiration - that Assange is a confused and vainglorious
narcissist who has little interest in spreading information and far more in
spreading the cult of Assange. It's long but utterly engrossing.

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

~~~
woah
Frankly, I'm willing to enable the cult of Assange if it furthers the free
spread of information. He's clearly a megalomaniac, but he provides a very
useful bulls-eye for those governments wishing to oppress the free flow of
information. While he is serving as the sacrificial pig of Wikileaks, the
information is getting out and it's being publicized. Snowden did it without
WL, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect all leakers to become info-
martyrs like him.

------
Sniperfish
The parent article links to Assange's comments after meeting with Schmidt
"Google is Not What it Seems" [1] which has some interesting discussion of the
links between Google's senior level and politicians. Published yesterday, I
don't recall seeing it linked.

[1] [http://www.newsweek.com/assange-google-not-what-it-
seems-279...](http://www.newsweek.com/assange-google-not-what-it-seems-279447)

~~~
eternalban
[https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-
seems/](https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/)

~~~
youngtaff
The article makes many assertions of connections, without really backing up
those assertions.

~~~
finid
You don't have to depend on an article to provide evidence of a connection
between Google's execs and the political leadership.

The fact that those execs were getting cheap gas for their private jets is
more than enough for anybody to put 2 and 2 together and get the right result.

------
kauffj
_Therefore the only playing field left is: what do they have and what do they
know?_

This portrays people as something akin to a Markov process: if you know these
two properties, you can make meaningful predictions about the future. Are
people so memoryless? It strikes me that at a minimum, history, experience,
and culture would all influence behavior and aren't so neatly stateful.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>> It strikes me that at a minimum, history, experience, and culture would
all influence behavior and aren't so neatly stateful.

At least in the US, clearly history has taught us nothing. Our leaders
continually make the same errors in regards to foreign policy, military
intervention, and myriad of other things.

~~~
oafitupa
Those are not mistakes, they [the leaders] benefit directly from that.

~~~
junto
This is spot on. The 'right' decisions are profit for a very small minority.
Those same decisions are nearly always negative to the majority, especially in
a global arena where Iraqi civilians for example don't have the chance to vote
democrat or republican!

------
tn13
As I moved out of my teens (and after watching GoT) I learned that nothing
often resembles to what is claimed and nothing can be painted in black and
white.

Assange or Snowden are not really white knights. While Snowden did an heroic
act without being biased towards any specific political ideology, Assange has
made a good enough career by playing his cards with good political acumen as
people have shown in the comments.

Honestly, I think Assange is just as bad as our politicians but in a way he
brings some balance to an otherwise tightly controlled political narrative.

------
bleblabla
Assange is a honeypot, please, PLEASE - everyone who is sitting on some
documents worth sharing, either wait or use a different aproach

------
ridgewell
Assange is an arsehole who's only interest is in publishing documents to
damage short-term political interest without interest for morality, the safety
of other human beings and the disregard for all things right.

~~~
xj9
While I wasn't 100% on board with the cable leaks, I do think disrupting
political interests and forcing transparency in government is a good idea.

~~~
XorNot
Maybe so, but when you take on a role associated with the media, you take on
the responsibilities associated with being the media.

Assange wants it both ways: he wants to be a media-like outlet, but not have
the moral responsibilities. It doesn't work that way.

Worse, by all accounts its mostly because he _knows_ it would be a lot of time
and effort to safely disclose the types of things he did/advocates should be.
There's a very great personal convenience for him to "believe" he's no
responsibility to safely redact documents.

