It’s getting worse too with more and more anti-encryption laws and centralisation.
That being said, since the Snowden information isn’t changing the world, then I can’t really fault anyone for not wanting to pay for hosting it.
Signal was created and enjoys popularity as a high security messenger thats easy for average users to adopt. Google upped their certificate sizes in response to snowdens releases. less trust was placed in NIST/NSA partnerships with technology and several weaker ciphers were outright rejected from the kernel for lack of transparency. Hell, theres an entire laptop manufacturer that sprung up due to it. https://puri.sm/
TLS adoption on websites also increased markedly and the HTTP2 spec made it mandatory. TLS1.3 PFS was also much more voraciously fought for, one could argue.
People are more serious about encrypted communications, as well. Matrix.org and Riot are enjoying great growth right now.
After Snowden, we now know with greater certainty that the surveillance is truly far reaching and more multi-faceted than we could've imagined.
Before Snowden, civil liberties activists (including me!) used to say "If people knew the extent of mass surveillance, they'd be up in arms - and we'd see some real changes." But no.
It is the same thing with Facebook. It isn't necessarily that people don't know the sacrifices they are making to their own privacy by using Facebook. It is that the utility people get out of Facebook is more valuable to them than any abstract idea of privacy. You need to show people the real world repercussions if you want them to change their behavior or beliefs.
Rather, they don't understand that cellphones that all of us provides that, along with GPS tracking etc.
They see the cameras, but they do not understand the implication...
A lot of it is how you explain it in a way that relates to them.
You can get through to none-techies but you have to couch it in a way that resonates.
People are slowly changing as well, ironically Facebook seems to be the one that is making more people slowly question whether putting their entire life out in public is worth it.
The problem was not solved in a political way so as as result it is being solved in a technical way instead. Much more progress needs to be made but progress is occurring.
I think things did change, but for the worse. Every time something like this is exposed, it's a decision point. If nothing is done by the public or those elected by the public, the perpetrators learn a valuable lesson, namely that they can probably increase the intensity of their surveillance without much worry and needing to hide. In a way it's relief for them.
Sure some programs were burned and exposed but they can just go and rename them and continue on.
The sensational parts of Greenwald's reporting were not supported by Snowden's documents or any other documents. Anybody who parrots those claims will rightfully be called a tinfoil hatter.
His unsubstantiated sensational claims start in the first sentence of his first article and continue from there.
I strongly disagree. For one thing, it's changed Silicon Valley's view on advertising based business models. It's also made the public much more aware of how their data is being used, which has changed and will further change the stock price of many companies.
I can also see him indirectly helping bring about the GPRD
When it was formed I expected it to be an honest, unbiased journalistic effort that would expose people of different backgrounds to uncomfortable truths. Instead it turned into editorials and blogging, with most posts filled with strong, obvious bias that would never pass the editors at most mainstream publications. Their biases are so strong and clear I'm sure they scare away at least half of the political spectrum.
It's too bad because the topics and facts they report on are important and interesting. There's no need for such strong bias.
Ironically, I think you may dislike it because it's exposed you to an uncomfortable truth, which is that some political agendas are rooted in facts and others are not.
For a while, The Intercept looked like it was going to be a breath of fresh air.
I certainly recognize what you mean, they could fulfill both their journalistic and political agendas with half the editorializing and bias. I honestly can't tell whether it's a conscious choice to draw readers with a non-traditional style or just a side-effect of operating outside the usual structures of journalism, but either way it does their writing no favors. Picking up staff like Sam Biddle suggests it's the latter, and these are simply people without much capacity to restrain themselves.
But what's even more damning to me is seeing The Intercept's record on due diligence and source protection. I was sympathetic on this for a long time, since critics like Lawfare were so quick to make speculative (and technologically ludicrous) accusations. But across Juan Thompson's stories, the Reality Winner debacle, and Kiriakou and Hickman's exposure, it's become increasingly hard to understand the The Intercept as a competent player in these leagues.
I'm glad it's out there, and it's still doing some good work on investigative stories like AT&T data tapping, but I can't shake the sense that operating genuinely outside the establishment tends to bring inescapable flaws along with the good stuff.
For me, it isn't specifically that the articles are bias (they are). What really turns me off is that the writers can't seem to get the hell out of the way of the story. Every article is just steeped in the writer's personal opinions to the point where it feels more like ranting than news.
There are occasionally good pieces on important topics, but I'm no longer willing to slog through the long line of headlines that repeat some variation of "[Politician] did [something you should hate him/her for]" in order to read them.
I'm with you on the bias. I want information, and I'll make my own decisions. However, maybe it is better when news outlets are overt with their biases. It's a little more disturbing to me to think of someone reading something they believe is unbiased when it's simply subtly biased.
Now, they can lay back and say "look, it's all legal now" (even if much may still be unconstitutional).
> “Both Laura & I have full copies of the archives, as do others. The Intercept has given full access to multiple media orgs, reporters & researchers. I've been looking for the right partner - an academic institution or research facility - that has the funds to robustly publish.”
Now this news doesn’t sound all too bad. We probably need more people to host it and/or make it available as torrent downloads. Even if interest has reduced, there could still be more knowledge to gain from it.
So the archive is mostly a huge collection of documents that have to undergo editing for opsec reasons, so as to not endanger actual people or reveal enough that it might go from "journalism" to "espionage" that warrants a greater release.
I don't believe the full archive was ever public. Instead, it was privately held and being maintained by people for research and publication. The Intercept winding this down signifies they no longer care to sift through or maintain the documents. That means that the editing part is gone, and they won't devote further resources internally to it. The decision to host the documents isn't the issue -- moreso the maintenance, reporting, and sourcing.
People rarely seem to have any actual principles they're willing to stand by when tribalism comes into play.
Etc., etc., etc.
Its a little tedious to compare his assertions to actual positions or rebuttals, but it left me feeling pretty disappointed in Greenwald for the carefulness of his thought (I'm assuming he wasn't being deliberately obtuse to be dramatic)
Criticism of talking heads is easy and not newsworthy.
He runs a news organization and puts out constant publications/podcasts/etc on things that are not just criticizing talking heads.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/nbc-news-to-claim-russia... (about nbc)
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-w... (about multiple outlets, lots of wapo)
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/29/cnn-submits-to-right-win... (about CNN)
I'd say at a glance there is slightly more crit of MSNBC than other major news outlets, but doesn't that make sense given the intercept's left-libertarian leanings? Of course they don't think brietbart or fox is doing good reporting. So bad in fact that it's not even worth commenting on.
Here is the first left-libertarian, and anarch-communist criticising Proudhon for being just a moderate anarcist and liberal, rather than libertarian, and segueing into a rant against property rights:
I should have described them as "left of center w/ an emphasis on personal rights and privacy".
> I should have described them as "left of center w/ an emphasis on personal rights and privacy".
I don't know if I agree with this either, but at least this is close enough to be arguable.
The real reason is that Greenwald isn't feuding with Fox News's political commentators. He is a frequent guest on their shows.
That is possibly the laziest link posting I've ever seen.
[critical] It took demand of Canada's Government for @FoxNews to finally delete false tweet blaming Muslims for mosque attack
[neutral] Isn't it a little strange to constantly rail about "state TV" when it comes to RT & Fox and then hire CIA Directors & General as your "news analysts"?
[critical] You can announce on MSNBC that Putin may have ordered Trump's attack on Assad & then scoff at Fox & Fake News
[neutral] "One giant Fox News" - how Wagner Moura explains to his American friends what the dominant Brazilian media is like
[supportive] Kudos to Fox News' @KirstenPowers asking Trump about Ailes & getting amazing answers http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/08/01/ailes-trump... …
[neutral] Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage - major backer of both BREXIT & Trump - joins Fox News as a contributor
[critical] Starting now: coverage of the greatest and most orchestrated governmental threat to free speech in the US: legally imposed Israel Oaths (a story self-professed free speech crusaders at Fox News have thus far refused to cover, because doing so might offend their viewers)
[neutral] When Reagan transmitted the treaty to the Senate in 1988, he said it was necessary to prosecute all torturers, and allow no justifications for its use. Might be worth reading to Fox News guests, and ex-CIA officials defending Gina Haspel http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858
> [neutral] Isn't it a little strange to constantly rail about "state TV" when it comes to RT & Fox and then hire CIA Directors & General as your "news analysts"?
False. This is critical of MSNBC's hires, and supportive of Fox News and RT.
> [critical] You can announce on MSNBC that Putin may have ordered Trump's attack on Assad & then scoff at Fox & Fake News
False. This is critical of MSNBC and supportive of Fox News. He is scoffing at MSNBC's scoffing at Fox.
That flips your numbers around.
Seems likely he's equally critical of MSNBC & Fox?
P.s. the tweets that I listed were the first bunch that showed up for me, didn't see a tweet above them (such as the one you mentioned).
They run negative coverage 24/7 on a single person, even for positive events, instead of real journalism about things that are actually destroying our democracy, like increased surveillance.