• NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s a fact that WL refused to publish the document cache with the justification being that the data was already out in the open but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on. How is that innuendo?

    • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      >but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on

      it seems to me that it was totally out (or later became totally available), regardless of the reporting that was done. it’s innuendo to imply that they refused to publish it for any reason outside of their normal editorial standards.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I agree there is no smoking gun per se, but I find the justification that it would “distract” from the 2016 election leaks to be incredibly flimsy. The rest of the info got out on the internet through sources other than WL.

        The refusal to publish also contradicts Assange’s claims in 2010 to publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight. The Kremlin couldn’t fit more squarely into that bucket.

        • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          he can still “publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight” without publishing every document about such an institution. any particular document or set of documents may be unable to be verified or not of particular interest or already available through other sources. he didn’t promise to publish every byte that mentioned the kremlin regardless of his editorial standards.