What evidence? Of conspiracy to do what?
Sadly, it's not unique to Assange. It's a problem with a lot of society, with politics, etc.
No one seems to have the moral integrity to treat their side and the others equally, and to stand up for those who do the same. If they did, Assange may not be in jail, or awaiting possible extradition to the US.
Journalists don't edit source material to fit their narrative. I long ago lost faith in Assange when he released edited footage of journalists being shot by a US military helicoptor with an edited audio track. The video with the original audio was damning enough, editing the video prior to release was the beginning of the end for Assange in my eyes. Since then rather than releasing any and all information Julian started to "curate" what was released. It's one of the many reasons many of the original members of wikileaks left the organization.
He's a divisive character and seems to have been a divisive character amongst those that knew and interacted with him, as well as the general public.
What's happened to him was all too predictable. The US was offended by him, so one way or another they were going to get their hands on him. They tried all the usual tricks - deny it, get their allies to do their dirty work while also denying it. And now they have him. I expect him to turn up dead or otherwise just disappear.
The narrative is that Assange put Trump into the world's most powerful office. The only parallel in history is Nixon's resignation. He may not be #1 but , if we are to believe the narrative, he's #2 (pun not intented)
Or we can conclude that he did not put trump in office. <insert tough decision meme here>
I dont understand this view. So the logic being presented is if a journalist (or other) is presenting information of public interest, but it comes from a source that has a political (or other) motivation behind it they should then bury the story?
I would understand this view if Assange also received information critical of the Trumps/Russia and refused to publicise it, but what was his alternative?
> he's not really a journalist
Then what is he? His format and method are different but essentially he is broadcasting news.
He had also promised a trove of leaks about Russia in the past that never materialized.
Compare him with Edward Snowden. Snowden has moderate opinions compared to Assange. With that, he is much more readable than Assange by general public, and so he is better shielded.
And both of them stood up to power and paid price for it.
It doesn't matter who they are and what kind of ice-cream flavor they like.
This kind of thinking is exactly what state propaganda pushes. Create smear campaign then shift the discourse to talking about the whistle blowers and not about the actual whistle blowing.
Notice how often 'Assange is rapist' and 'Snowden is a russian spy' narrative are almost all that ever comes up on media coverage. Or the talk about leaks is derailed by someone to those points.
But they are different characters. Assange is much more revolutionary at heart than Snowden (in the Cyberspace Manifesto sense). And it hurts him more, in my opinion, because the society is not ready (if it's ever gonna be).
On the other hand, Snowden's opinions are pretty moderate. He doesn't want a revolutionary society where all information wants to be free. He just wants a better oversight of secret services. So he's more relatable as a result.
My introduction to wikileaks was when it was first covered on slashdot, before any leaks with any relevancy to me. At that time the stated mission statement was to publish all of the leaked documents after authenticating them in an effort to subject secret actions of government to more scrutiny. And make those in government more cautions about what they'll do even with the cover of secrecy. It was created by people from the anglosphere, therefore the US was always going to be a large part of their focus. No matter how much more deserving of criticism other countries may be.
With that as a throughline (and even back then Assange had a bit of reputation as a wanker), I've never been _that_ surprised with the way the project has acted over the years. If my only exposure to Assange was the coverage whenever he made the news, I would find the whole thing impenetrable. It's one of the things that first made me start seeing how poorly thrown together news narratives really are.
He's shielded by russia. Were he in any other country he'd be in a US cell alone. Funny how one has to hide in Russia to preach encryption!
while biased, it's not in itself a lie
> naive to trust wikileaks is impartial.
Also irrelevant. Nobody should be imprisoned for being partial!
Assange is going to get Epstein'd
i don't know why you feel like expending heatfelt energy protecting a russian intelligence asset