WikiLeaks threatens to start its own Twitter because of ‘cyber feudalism’ - Polidicks

They're 100% right, especially with their now established ministry of truth, twitter is extremely biased and there are plenty of examples of favorable behavior against those who incite harassment. Also times where people are banned for harassing tweets then quickly unbanned by because of connections with twitter staff.

[QUOTE=meek;50757597]Please post proof of this, I haven't found it.[/QUOTE] [url]https://tweetsave.com/nero[/url] The guy indirectly incite a flame war by provoking leslie. It's a tactic most fanatical twitter/youtube channels use, left or right. You use your followers to send your message and claim that you're not responsible for anything you do. They basically find someone they disagree with (Leslie) , "troll"/insult them (Posted fake screenshots), and post their reaction (Being blocked, reported, ect). Keemstar uses the same tactic. He manipulates his followers for others to do his bidding by posting information that the target is vulnerable to trolling, and that the target disagrees with you. [editline]49[/editline] Hell, lets use that leslie example. She reblogged someone saying racist shit, and said "Look at this racist person, get them!", causing people to probably attack that person. The only difference is that Milo is experienced, and did not literally say "Get them!"

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50757701][url]https://tweetsave.com/nero[/url] The guy indirectly incite a flame war by provoking leslie. It's a tactic most fanatical twitter/youtube channels use, left or right. You use your followers to send your message and claim that you're not responsible for anything you do. They basically find someone they disagree with (Leslie) , "troll"/insult them (Posted fake screenshots), and post their reaction (Being blocked, reported, ect). Keemstar uses the same tactic. He manipulates his followers for others to do his bidding by posting information that the target is vulnerable to trolling, and that the target disagrees with you. [editline]49[/editline] Hell, lets use that leslie example. She reblogged someone saying racist shit, and said "Look at this racist person, get them!", causing people to probably attack that person. The only difference is that Milo is experienced, and did not literally say "Get them!"[/QUOTE] Then he didnt [i]directly[/i] say "get them", which is what people are asking evidence for, while Leslie did. What part of that is hard to understand.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50757903]Then he didnt [i]directly[/i] say "get them", which is what people are asking evidence for, while Leslie did. What part of that is hard to understand.[/QUOTE] Don't give me that "What part of that is hard to understand". Start acting like an ass after at least a page of arguing, or at least after you've heard my entire argument. Like I said in the post, there is no evidence of him doing it directly (aka "Go attack this person."). Just indirectly (aka "Hey look, I attacked this person. Look at her response! What a shame she's easy to troll!") Milo has been playing this game since forever. He knows how to influence others to his advantage, he's just like Donald Trump. He knows how to manipulate people into thinking what he wants people to think, and he knows how to manipulate people into thinking what others want to think. Every time twitter punishes him, he immediately blames twitter for being a progressive fascist. He points at twitter and says "SEE I TOLD YOU FASCIST LEFTISTS ARE TAKING OVER, DO YOU BELIEVE ME NOW?" and uses the naivety of his followers to believe that Twitter is somehow a left-wing corporation that is out to censor right-wing users because of disagreements. Look at what he has to say about it. [url]http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/19/breaking-milo-suspended-twitter-20-minutes-party/[/url] [quote]In a comment, Milo said “With the cowardly suspension of my account, Twitter has confirmed itself as [B]a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives.”[/B][/quote] Black Lives Matter Extremists and ISIS accounts are regularly banned on twitter for supporting/endorsing terrorism, domestic or global. But people believe this because of the belief that free speech is falling down a slippery slope because "LIBERALS!" [quote]“Twitter is holding me responsible for the actions of fans and trolls using the [B]special pretzel logic of the left.[/B] Where are the Twitter police when Justin Bieber’s fans cut themselves on his behalf?”[/quote] As well all know, that whole cut for bieber thing was a fake hashtag created by 4chan. Do people actually believe that Bieber had anything to do with this because this isn't a political issue, as far as I know. [quote][B]“Like all acts of the totalitarian regressive left,[/B] this will blow up in their faces, [highlight]netting me more adoring fans.[/highlight] We’re winning the [B]culture war[/B], and Twitter just shot themselves in the foot.”[/quote] He knows that extreme right-wing media machines will eat this up. It's pretty much the Benghazi of social media.

The problem is these things can happen with out it being intentional, everyone has rabid fans, we have reason to believe people like keemstar do it intentionally because of their history of harassment, milo despite how much a piece of shit he is I don't believe has a history of harassment, if you have proof otherwise by all means. Also sure random nobody accounts get banned, but people like randilee harper are still around, and that fact is enough to show twitter's favoritism. Ya know actually I don't think keemstar does it very subtly, he's doxxed people plenty of times.

[QUOTE=mooman1080;50758724]The problem is these things can happen with out it being intentional, everyone has rabid fans, we have reason to believe people like keemstar do it intentionally because of their history of harassment, milo despite how much a piece of shit he is I don't believe has a history of harassment, if you have proof otherwise by all means. Also sure random nobody accounts get banned, but people like randilee harper are still around, and that fact is enough to show twitter's favoritism. Ya know actually I don't think keemstar does it very subtly, he's doxxed people plenty of times.[/QUOTE] Milo does not have a history of harassing people (as far as I know), but he does have a history of supporting it. I cannot provide proof of the other claim since his account was deleted, and archived tweets does not have a good search function, but I read a buisness article that showed that his account might have been unverified for replying "You deserve it" to a request asking for Milo to prevent ongoing mass harassment to the person giving the request.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50757284]For those of you who don't know, The first number she gave out is the North Star Location Services hotline (or userline), the second number belongs to an actual person (looked at an archived tweet). I can't find any information no whether or not that's the CEO, but the number does belong to a person. But you can't' say for sure that this is actually a case of Twitter ignoring her tweet (or giving it a low ban time) because of bias for one reason, and two other possible scenarios. [B]This post is from May 2011.[/B] [URL="https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council"]The Twitter Trust and Safety Council was founded in February 2016.[/URL]. [B]How do you know that she wasn't banned?[/B] Doxxing is not always a permanent ban. Doxxers can get as low as a 24 hour account suspension depending on how major or minor it is. Moderation on twitter is extremely generous, and it's not limited to left or right. Just look at all the shit Milo said and got minor bans for (he said that people deserve harassment in the past, after someone complained that his followers were harassing this woman). He only had his verification sticker taken away. [B]How do you know that twitter moderation even saw the post?[/B] It's true that she made the post, but is there any evidence that Twitter even saw the tweet in the first place? Was it reported at the time? Someone can get away with a crime if no one calls the police.[/QUOTE] Just for your info: Harper is a [I]far[/I] worse and more consistent harasser than Yiannopoulos by just about every measure other than reach. I've personally seen her insult and defame a scientist, and direct her followers to harass him, [I]for months on end[/I] just for him disagreeing with her on one issue.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;50759024]Just for your info: Harper is a [I]far[/I] worse and more consistent harasser than Yiannopoulos by just about every measure other than reach.[/QUOTE] If that is true, then I encourage you to report her if she does that sort of thing. I'm not arguing that she isn't a terrible person, I'm arguing the claim that twitter is somehow bias against this woman.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50757284]For those of you who don't know, The first number she gave out is the North Star Location Services hotline (or userline), the second number belongs to an actual person (looked at an archived tweet). I can't find any information no whether or not that's the CEO, but the number does belong to a person. But you can't' say for sure that this is actually a case of Twitter ignoring her tweet (or giving it a low ban time) because of bias for one reason, and two other possible scenarios. [B]This post is from May 2011.[/B] [URL="https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council"]The Twitter Trust and Safety Council was founded in February 2016.[/URL]. [B]How do you know that she wasn't banned?[/B] Doxxing is not always a permanent ban. Doxxers can get as low as a 24 hour account suspension depending on how major or minor it is. Moderation on twitter is extremely generous, and it's not limited to left or right. Just look at all the shit Milo said and got minor bans for (he said that people deserve harassment in the past, after someone complained that his followers were harassing this woman). He only had his verification sticker taken away. [B]How do you know that twitter moderation even saw the post?[/B] It's true that she made the post, but is there any evidence that Twitter even saw the tweet in the first place? Was it reported at the time? Someone can get away with a crime if no one calls the police.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/CikNkHJ.jpg[/img] She's been reported thousands of times. It's been an ongoing pattern of behavior with her.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50759012]Milo does not have a history of harassing people (as far as I know), but he does have a history of supporting it. I cannot provide proof of the other claim since his account was deleted, and archived tweets does not have a good search function, but I read a buisness article that showed that his account might have been unverified for replying "You deserve it" to a request asking for Milo to prevent ongoing mass harassment to the person giving the request.[/QUOTE] I follow(ed) him and can confirm that he at the very least did nothing to inspire restraint in these matters. If anything, he's been fanning the flames whenever he was attacked. It's quite rare to see him make the first move though. [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50759078]If that is true, then I encourage you to report her if she does that sort of thing. I'm not arguing that she isn't a terrible person, I'm arguing the claim that twitter is somehow bias against this woman.[/QUOTE] As Cliff2 says, she's probably been reported thousands if not tens of thousands of times over the last two years. (She also managed to get a ton of people, including me, framed as "Twitter's worst harassers" at one point. It's quite annoying to get blocked by a considerable amount of large companies and a huge amount of feminists without ever having done something remotely deserving that. Technically that's off-site though, so Twitter can't realistically do anything about it.)

[QUOTE=Tamschi;50759099]As Cliff2 says, she's probably been reported thousands if not tens of thousands of times over the last two years. (She also managed to get a ton of people, including me, framed as "Twitter's worst harassers" at one point. It's quite annoying to get blocked by a considerable amount of large companies and a huge amount of feminists without ever having done something remotely deserving that.)[/QUOTE] If this is true, then this is a problem. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I find it incredibly hard to believe that twitter ignores shit like this considering that she would most definitely get mass reported and that relatively unbiased news sites would pick this up. I wish there was actually a ban log you could view, instead of googling tweets and other things because it would make this a lot easier to find out how much special treatment someone is getting, if at all. [editline]40[/editline] I found one image that seems to be relatively viral that she does indeed get suspended over her hateful tweets. Question is, how long and how often?

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50759078]If that is true, then I encourage you to report her if she does that sort of thing. I'm not arguing that she isn't a terrible person, I'm arguing the claim that twitter is somehow bias against this woman.[/QUOTE] Someone showed an attempt at doxing from 2011 and she's still on twitter. Explain to me how twitter has no biases because if she was doing something wrong and isn't banned clearly no one reported her over the 5 years of her activity.

[QUOTE=mooman1080;50759261]Someone showed an attempt at doxing from 2011 and she's still on twitter. Explain to me how twitter has no biases because if she was doing something wrong and isn't banned clearly no one reported her over the 5 years of her activity.[/QUOTE] I mentioned before, doxxing someone does not always lead to a permaban. Upon googling, I came across this news article and others: [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/twitter-bans-revenge-porn-and-doxing-amid-crackdown-on-abuse-10102676.html[/url] This ban was in 2015, and the post you're referring to was in 2011. Plus it also mentions this: [quote]If users violate the ban, their accounts will be locked unless they delete the information. If users break the rule repeatedly, their account will be suspended.[/quote] Unless something has changed, doxxing is never a permanent account suspension. I think that twitter isn't biased, I just think that they're fucking terrible when it comes to handling cases of harassment.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50759236]If this is true, then this is a problem. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I find it incredibly hard to believe that twitter ignores shit like this considering that she would most definitely get mass reported and that relatively unbiased news sites would pick this up. I wish there was actually a ban log you could view, instead of googling tweets and other things because it would make this a lot easier to find out how much special treatment someone is getting, if at all. [editline]40[/editline] I found one image that seems to be relatively viral that she does indeed get suspended over her hateful tweets. Question is, how long and how often?[/QUOTE] Most moderate news sites didn't pick it up at all, unfortunately. [URL="https://www.google.com/search?q=Randi+Harper&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbm=nws&ei=N-WSV_DNEoH_sgGJrqDQCw&start=10&sa=N#q=Randi+Harper&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbm=nws&start=0"]When she makes the headlines on anything other than Breitbart[/URL], it's usually because of her 'feminist' activism and [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/13/online-abuse-how-women-are-fighting-back"]she's hailed for 'fighting back'[/URL]. (Leigh Alexander, who wrote that Guardian piece, [URL="http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=leigh_alexander"]is responsible for a large number of spin articles on the issue[/URL]. This link leads to a GamerGate associated site, but all claims on there are sourced (via independent archives or other reports that are properly sourced).) At least Harper herself doesn't seem to be sexist in whom she targets, directing her hatred at plenty of women too. She got into a huge fight with author Anne Rice once over the latter calling out a fake book review of hers. She even runs an 'anti-abuse charity' (putting that in quotes because I've never seen it actually do anything) and [URL="https://archive.is/Udt9Q"]gets just short of 4k$ on Patreon each month for it[/URL]. Tendency falling at least. [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] It's [I]possible[/I] that Twitter is caught up in the media spin surrounding Harper, but you'd think especially they would look at her overall behaviour directly rather than taking other people's word for it.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50758336]Don't give me that "What part of that is hard to understand". Start acting like an ass after at least a page of arguing, or at least after you've heard my entire argument. Like I said in the post, there is no evidence of him doing it directly (aka "Go attack this person."). Just indirectly (aka "Hey look, I attacked this person. Look at her response! What a shame she's easy to troll!")[/QUOTE] You people are unbelievable. You were asked to give proof how he [B][U]DIRECTLY [/U][/B]told his followers to go after her and you are linking his entire account and saying he did it indirectly, without showing us the specific tweet. Good job. Then you argue he basically went "Hey look, I attacked this person. Look at her response! What a shame she's easy to troll!". Alright. Which post is it? Because I can't see it. If saying mean things to people when you have a large followerbase equals inciting harassment campaign against them, then thousands of popular tweets should be closed.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;50759079][img]http://i.imgur.com/CikNkHJ.jpg[/img] She's been reported thousands of times. It's been an ongoing pattern of behavior with her.[/QUOTE] Hold on a second. "Go fuck yourself" is a "rape threat". Adding to how ridiculous that is, "set yourself on fire" is somehow not a threat under the same rules. What is she smoking.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50756032]They ban Isis accounts all the fucking time dude. Get your shit together before you start screeching.[/QUOTE] Screeching? Okay. They ban ISIS accounts all the time, cool. Calm down.

[QUOTE=Last or First;50759651]Hold on a second. "Go fuck yourself" is a "rape threat". Adding to how ridiculous that is, "set yourself on fire" is somehow not a threat under the same rules. What is she smoking.[/QUOTE]These people tend to just be crazy by default, encountering one in real life is quite an experience. Fortunately I never gave any fucks to begin with, so I'm largely immune to their shit. (shaming, screaming incoherently, etc) [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] Also "cyber feudalism" sounds cool as fuck, and in a roundabout way it kind of is a little bit like that.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50759432]You people are unbelievable.[/quote] Who the fuck are "You people?" What collective of people are you referring to? Say it. [quote]You were asked to give proof how he [B][U]DIRECTLY [/U][/B]told his followers to go after her and you are linking his entire account and saying he did it indirectly, without showing us the specific tweet. Good job.[/quote] I wasn't asked to give proof of anything. I gave my two cents on the whole conversation of that post. I even admitted that there is absolutely 0 evidence of him directly attacking him. I genuinely don't know why you're getting worked up over that. The tweets I'm referring to are at the top of the page, his entire tweet history when it comes to the situation displays everything I'm getting at. I didn't think I would have to provide a specific example, considering I was talking about his general behavior towards Lesslie. [quote]Then you argue he basically went "Hey look, I attacked this person. Look at her response! What a shame she's easy to troll!". Alright. Which post is it? Because I can't see it.[/quote] Here you are, then. [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20160718235009/https://twitter.com/nero/status/755177899423043584"]Hey look, I insulted this person! Look at her response![/URL] [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20160718234907/https://twitter.com/nero/status/755179836080025602"]Look at her response![/URL] [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20160719042407/https://twitter.com/nero/status/755255883446312960"]Look at her response! What a shame she's easy to troll![/URL] [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20160719043109/https://twitter.com/nero/status/755256958828089344"]See, I'm doing it too! Haha Look how fun it is guys![/URL] [quote]If saying mean things to people when you have a large followerbase equals inciting harassment campaign against them, then thousands of popular tweets should be closed.[/QUOTE] This isn't JUST saying mean things. There's a difference between genuinely giving criticism, and being a creepy dick. Making fake tweets and posting that you were blocked goes beyond "saying mean things."

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50757701][url]https://tweetsave.com/nero[/url] The guy indirectly incite a flame war by provoking leslie. It's a tactic most fanatical twitter/youtube channels use, left or right. You use your followers to send your message and claim that you're not responsible for anything you do. They basically find someone they disagree with (Leslie) , "troll"/insult them (Posted fake screenshots), and post their reaction (Being blocked, reported, ect). Keemstar uses the same tactic. He manipulates his followers for others to do his bidding by posting information that the target is vulnerable to trolling, and that the target disagrees with you. [editline]49[/editline] Hell, lets use that leslie example. She reblogged someone saying racist shit, and said "Look at this racist person, get them!", causing people to probably attack that person. The only difference is that Milo is experienced, and did not literally say "Get them!"[/QUOTE] Motherfucker Boogie and Total biscuit cab accidentally cause a mob riot. Twitter is just terrible platform that encourages it on it's own. You can't blame Milo for that.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50762363]How is he supposed to sell his warhawk narrative with pesky Wikileaks exposing war crimes?[/QUOTE] I don't think that Wikileaks is going to do anything much to stop me from advocating intervention overall, but where it has exposed war crimes this it has done a good thing. However, the vast majority of the time, Wikileaks simply exposes everything, including personal information and stuff that should genuinely be kept secret (who is benefiting other than our enemies from some of those diplomatic cables being leaked?). This is in contrast to the Panama Papers, where the news organisations spent time filtering junk, personal information and so on and actually did real journalism work to expose some important stuff. That, and most organisations aren't fronted by a potential rapist on the run from the police. If Wikileaks did what the ICIJ did I would be praising them. But they aren't, because Julian Assange is motivated primarily by a hatred of the West (which goes as far as outing liberals and democrats in dictatorships like Belarus) and his own narcissism, not by real journalistic motives. [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] You didn't need to edit neocon to warhawk, I am a neocon.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50757063]Does the NSA indiscriminately publish everything they get on the Internet? No? Then they aren't as big an invasion of privacy.[/QUOTE] The invasion of privacy doesn't stem from publication of gathered data. It stems from the data gathering itself. If party A knows fact B that party C would rather party A not know, party A invaded party C's privacy. It doesn't matter if party A publishes fact B or not.

I'll admit, I've sort of fallen out of love with Wikileaks, primarily for how careless they are with their data (as mentioned before, failing to edit out details that might endanger people) and I've been suspicious of wikileaks in terms of bias since they've always seemed to go pretty easy on Russia, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow]Assange has a RT talkshow[/url], Russia took in Snowden, etc. I get it might just be that Wikileaks is tailoring what it releases based on its audience but honestly I can't really take it seriously anymore - I'm not one for conspiracy theories but at times I do honestly wonder if it was compromised in some way by the Russians to focus almost exclusively on NATO countries.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50754448]could wikileaks just maybe stop oh my god cyber feudalism. fucking hell. didn't even think the fevered paranoid idiocy of julian assange could come up with something so ridiculous[/QUOTE] They went from just leaking amazing things to leaking DNC-Hillary things and also shitposting on twitter. Not to mention Assange's barely repressed ravings about a jewish conspiracy.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50760714]Who the fuck are "You people?" What collective of people are you referring to? Say it.[/QUOTE] People who defend Leslie and support Milo's ban. [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50760714]I wasn't asked to give proof of anything. I gave my two cents on the whole conversation of that post. I even admitted that there is absolutely 0 evidence of him directly attacking him. I genuinely don't know why you're getting worked up over that. The tweets I'm referring to are at the top of the page, his entire tweet history when it comes to the situation displays everything I'm getting at. I didn't think I would have to provide a specific example, considering I was talking about his general behavior towards Lesslie. [/QUOTE] Yeah he was mean to her. That doesn't equal inciting other people to harass her. [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50760714]Here you are, then. [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20160718235009/https://twitter.com/nero/status/755177899423043584"]Hey look, I insulted this person! Look at her response![/URL] [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20160718234907/https://twitter.com/nero/status/755179836080025602"]Look at her response![/URL] [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20160719042407/https://twitter.com/nero/status/755255883446312960"]Look at her response! What a shame she's easy to troll![/URL] [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20160719043109/https://twitter.com/nero/status/755256958828089344"]See, I'm doing it too! Haha Look how fun it is guys![/URL][/QUOTE] What the fuck? The first two are insults. The latter 2 he's trolling her. He's not saying the things you are saying. There is no "look guys! look at her responses lol!". There is no "look how easy it is to troll Leslie". There's simply him, sending mean messages to her. You are making shit up. Otherwise every single insult on the internet is incitement to harassment. And every troll is incitement to troll said person even more. [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50760714]This isn't JUST saying mean things. There's a difference between genuinely giving criticism, and being a creepy dick. Making fake tweets and posting that you were blocked goes beyond "saying mean things."[/QUOTE] Who the hell said anything about criticism? What are you talking about? I'm not justifying his messages to her. He was a dick. But that doesn't equal to incitement to harassment.

[QUOTE=spekter;50754557]They ban one person for inciting hate/making offensive comments, when the other person was doing exactly that and has done in the past. You can't say there's no double standard at play.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the last straw was the spreading of the fake tweets that he presented as being from Leslie. Edit: Wait, so some of them WERE real?

So sitting around and being racist got you banned from twitter? Boo fucking hoo. The terms of service on twitter specifically states that attacking someone based on factors like their skin colour is not allowed. People pointing to Leslie's tweet where she tells people to attack someone else don't seem to realise that the difference between that and what Milo did is that what Milo did was because of Leslie's skin colour. The tweet where Leslie sends people to attack someone else wasn't racially motivated.

[QUOTE=Kristviljan;50768053]So sitting around and being racist got you banned from twitter? Boo fucking hoo. The terms of service on twitter specifically states that attacking someone based on factors like their skin colour is not allowed. People pointing to Leslie's tweet where she tells people to attack someone else don't seem to realise that the difference between that and what Milo did is that what Milo did was because of Leslie's skin colour. The tweet where Leslie sends people to attack someone else wasn't racially motivated.[/QUOTE] Oh really? [video]https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/564664734268411906[/video] [media]https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/169003820083449856[/media] [img]http://i.imgur.com/vBMW8IA.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50756882]Dumping databases of emails isnt government transparency, it is dumping databases of emails If you agree with nigh-objective statement that emails may include private information then the fact that they release every single email without hinsight is a breach of privacy because it is private data made public. If you suggest that us knowing the blood types or preffered sandwiches of people loosely affiliated with the government is government transparency then I dont know man. See the differences to Snowden's case. It is bright and clear.[/QUOTE] Boo hoo. Sometimes information is more important than the privacy of people who are actively hijacking a country's democracy. The value of this leak greatly outweighs the privacy of some DNC staffers.

Thats some dangerous "the ends justify the means" thinking right there. Knowing about corruption is inportant. Knowing some random staffers credit card info and SSN is dangerous and unimportant.