• Assange is a completely unnecessary, even detrimental, aspect of Wikileaks
    37 replies, posted
By making himself out to be the public face and target of the attacks against wikileaks, he takes worth away from the real purpose of the sites, i.e. the leaks. Because Assange = Wikileaks in the media and so many people's minds, it makes it easier to attack him directly and make attacks of no real substance, and it distracts from the importance and substance of the actual leaks. If Assange weren't around, and Wikileaks was an anonymous association, contacting media anonymously and not giving any identifiable public face to the organization, just keeping Wikileaks being the only thing that represents Wikileaks, it would be much more effective. There would be nothing to attack character wise, and the content of the leaks would be much more important and focused on. tl;dr: Assange works as a distraction from the actual issues, and a scapegoat for attacks.
thread not worthy of posts? :v:
[QUOTE=Roof;26500145]thread not worthy of posts? :v:[/QUOTE] what real reason is there to post anything
He gets all the attention which distracts everyone from the people actually providing the leaks.
i think it's more disgusting that governments want to get him in prison and deal "justice" to him because he released sensitive information that he himself was given to, when he didn't even acquire it through illegal means really shows you how fucking stupid this shit is
He has to be the figurehead, otherwise the operation falls apart. Arresting/Killing Assange won't stop the leaks of documents, perhaps slow their prevalence a bit. Think about it this way; if Assange wasn't a media figurehead, Wikileaks is a shady faceless website. Something detrimental happens to Assange? Media coverage on Wikileaks side. Wikileaks (with Assange's media personality) goes down? Media coverage on Wikileaks side. Wikileaks (without figurehead) goes down? Media coverage against Wikileaks. He is not harming Wikileaks good name, he's protecting the other people in the operation. Julian Assange is a physical representation of the website (don't take this too literally), whereas the website is just information stored in a data bank. You can remove information considerably easier than a tangible, physical item.
Organisations need a face otherwise nobody takes them seriously.
[QUOTE=raidenato;26500638]He has to be the figurehead, otherwise the operation falls apart. Arresting/Killing Assange won't stop the leaks of documents, perhaps slow their prevalence a bit. Think about it this way; if Assange wasn't a media figurehead, Wikileaks is a shady faceless website. Something detrimental happens to Assange? Media coverage on Wikileaks side. Wikileaks (with Assange's media personality) goes down? Media coverage on Wikileaks side. Wikileaks (without figurehead) goes down? Media coverage against Wikileaks. He is not harming Wikileaks good name, he's protecting the other people in the operation.[/QUOTE] He's not harming, but making it less effective. They could still hold a media presence without such a public figurehead. [editline]5th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;26500649]Organisations need a face otherwise nobody takes them seriously.[/QUOTE] Why wouldn't they be taken seriously? Without Assange, they would be taken purely at the value of the leaks, which I personally think would be more effective and draw more attention to them.
[QUOTE=Squeaken;26500158]He gets all the attention which distracts everyone from the people actually providing the leaks.[/QUOTE] So you WANT them to focus on the people that actually make Wikileaks work?
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26500055]By making himself out to be the public face and target of the attacks against wikileaks, he takes worth away from the real purpose of the sites, i.e. the leaks. Because Assange = Wikileaks in the media and so many people's minds, it makes it easier to attack him directly and make attacks of no real substance, and it distracts from the importance and substance of the actual leaks. If Assange weren't around, and Wikileaks was an anonymous association, contacting media anonymously and not giving any identifiable public face to the organization, just keeping Wikileaks being the only thing that represents Wikileaks, it would be much more effective. There would be nothing to attack character wise, and the content of the leaks would be much more important and focused on. tl;dr: Assange works as a distraction from the actual issues, and a scapegoat for attacks.[/QUOTE] The idea is that the person is a scapegoat for the organization. His job is to take all the criticism.
Without Assange, there would be a lot less media hype about WikiLeaks, meaning many less people would have found out about it, and hence it would have been no where near as effective.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26500676]The idea is that the person is a scapegoat for the organization. His job is to take all the criticism.[/QUOTE] Exactly my point, his position as a scapegoat does more harm than good. If the attacks were focused on the pure content of the organization, there wouldn't be a highly human element to it, and it would have to focus on content. As it is now, accusations can be made against Assange which relate to him only, yet still tarnish the image of Wikileaks and lower the worth of the leaks, as it's seen as "That organization Assange runs", thus bad stuff he does is linked to Wikileaks.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26500656]Why wouldn't they be taken seriously? Without Assange, they would be taken purely at the value of the leaks, which I personally think would be more effective and draw more attention to them.[/QUOTE] It should work that way, but it doesn't.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26500706]It should work that way, but it doesn't.[/QUOTE] How do we know if it's never been tried that way? Though, didn't Assange have a much less public presence during the Collateral Murder issue, and that still got quite a bit of attention?
[QUOTE=Squeaken;26500158]He gets all the attention which distracts everyone from the people actually providing the leaks.[/QUOTE] Holy shit your right !
So fire Assange and just use a Microsoft Sam voice or something yes?
Besides you didn't read shit. There is a reason they put a face to Wikileaks, they had to. Here is a question&answer by Mister Assange addressing why they put a face to Wikileaks. [B]Question: Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous? This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too. And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.[/B] Answer: Julian Assange: This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force. Think before you speak.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26500649]Organisations need a face otherwise nobody takes them seriously.[/QUOTE] Facepunch Studios [editline]5th December 2010[/editline] I'm just kidding.
[QUOTE=amcwatters;26509853]Facepunch Studios[/QUOTE] Garry.
Who watches Wikileaks?
Assange has an agenda and uses Wikileaks as a scapegoat for something more sinister.
[QUOTE=Subwayy;26507295]Besides you didn't read shit. There is a reason they put a face to Wikileaks, they had to. Here is a question&answer by Mister Assange addressing why they put a face to Wikileaks. [B]Question: Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous? This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too. And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.[/B] Answer: Julian Assange: This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force. Think before you speak.[/QUOTE] That didn't really answer his question, though, he didn't address how the attacks on him affect the credibility of wikileaks. And his comment about "distracting curiosity" applies exactly the same to him as a public face than it would have to wikileaks as an organization, except as an org it would be less effective and less substantive. If you don't know anything about the people, you can't say anything about the people.
Can you read? Do you understand punctuation? Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous? Only two sentences that were questions. Both of them were answered. "However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us." That is the comment about "Distracting curiosity" which refers to people misrepresenting & impersonating Wikileaks. How does someone pretending to be a part of Wikileaks apply to him? How can someone PRETEND to be him? Obviously it is possible, but only an idiot would believe them. You blow dick at defending yourself bro.
[i]"As a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting. " [/i] [img]http://www.elrondsisle.com/glory/bio_bruce_wayne2_200.jpg[/img] He should of taken advice from Bruce Wayne.
[QUOTE=Subwayy;26516878]Can you read? Do you understand punctuation? Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous? Only two sentences that were questions. Both of them were answered. "However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us." That is the comment about "Distracting curiosity" which refers to people misrepresenting & impersonating Wikileaks. How does someone pretending to be a part of Wikileaks apply to him? How can someone PRETEND to be him? Obviously it is possible, but only an idiot would believe them. You blow dick at defending yourself bro.[/QUOTE] I wasn't even talking about the pretending part, that's not relevant. It's just the distractedness. And really, I make reasonable points and you have to open up with "you can't read for shit" and "you blow dick"? Good way to convince me of your point.
[QUOTE=Dr Bob;26510249]Who watches Wikileaks?[/QUOTE] Wikileaks obviously. I'm really waiting for Wikileaks to publish leaked info on themselves. Although I guess it would have to be info about them, not from them.
[QUOTE=Guniv;26517625]Markus Persson (notch)= Minecraft/Mojang[/QUOTE] Not to distract from the real discussion at hand but until very recently Notch did = the entirety of minecraft.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26517518]I wasn't even talking about the pretending part, that's not relevant. It's just the distractedness. And really, I make reasonable points and you have to open up with "you can't read for shit" and "you blow dick"? Good way to convince me of your point.[/QUOTE] ......Distractedness about who represents them. It distracts them from the main point, if people are making false claims it takes away from the actual information. And yes I am resorting to "You can't read for shit" and "you blow dick" because both are true and you really aren't even worth debating with.
[QUOTE=Jsm;26517680]Wikileaks obviously. I'm really waiting for Wikileaks to publish leaked info on themselves. Although I guess it would have to be info about them, not from them.[/QUOTE] Wikileaks leaks information on Wikileaks to Wikileaks.
[QUOTE=ThePutty;26500208]i think it's more disgusting that governments want to get him in prison and deal "justice" to him because he released sensitive information that he himself was given to, when he didn't even acquire it through illegal means really shows you how fucking stupid this shit is[/QUOTE] No, but the guy who released the documents TO him should be arrested for treason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.