Source?
The DoJ would love for you to testify for them as this is what they accuse him of doing.
""All information should be open" is a naive position"
Relevance?
He also does obviously doesn't believe this as literally as you're interpreting it, demonstrated by his own words and actions such as redacting.
"a > 0 chance that Assange was used by Russia"
This can be said about every publication ever made by anyone, ever. Even those with known sources.
"Basically, Assange did not "publish responsibly" and I believe his motivation was mostly personal fame."
Source? Relevance?
If I believe your statement is motivated by personal fame, why does it matter?
Can you point to a journalist who is, without a doubt, devoid of desire for fame?
You might view this response as mildly combative, but I'm trying to be succinct.
Source?
The DoJ would love for you to testify for them as this is what they accuse him of doing.
""All information should be open" is a naive position"
Relevance?
He also does obviously doesn't believe this as literally as you're interpreting it, demonstrated by his own words and actions such as redacting.
"a > 0 chance that Assange was used by Russia"
This can be said about every publication ever made by anyone, ever. Even those with known sources.
"Basically, Assange did not "publish responsibly" and I believe his motivation was mostly personal fame."
Source? Relevance?
If I believe your statement is motivated by personal fame, why does it matter?
Can you point to a journalist who is, without a doubt, devoid of desire for fame?
You might view this response as mildly combative, but I'm trying to be succinct.