Illegal Banking Embargo Stifles Wikileaks

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

No, it was mass leaking of documents. Journalism typically involves actual journalism.

But then I recall you believe random bloggers to be good sources of information.

No. I believe that corporate owned media isn't significantly more useful as a source of information than blogs.

So yeah, when my friend is in Tunisia or Haiti and telling me about what's going on via his blog, yeah, I am going to put more faith in what he is writing than what I read in anything owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Hell, I trust YOU more than I trust a lot of news organizations.

Unvetted information is just fine, let people dissect, verify and do all that work. I trust the crowd-sourcing more than I trust Newscorp.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by mswas

No.

< Mod Hat >
Same thing I told Ken/Dio: if you continue to post one-word contradictions, you'll get boxed. This isn't the Monty Python "Departments Of Arguing Forum"*

Everyone else, same deal--no "No u" responses.

Thanks.


*Don't do it....just...don't.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Fenris

< Mod Hat >
Same thing I told Ken/Dio: if you continue to post one-word contradictions, you'll get boxed. This isn't the Monty Python "Departments Of Arguing Forum"*

Everyone else, same deal--no "No u" responses.

Thanks.


*Don't do it....just...don't.

Except I didn't do that. I responded to multiple parts of the post. The post you were referring to was a 9 word response. She asked a yes or no question, and I answered her yes or no question with a no.

If it's against the rules to answer a yes or no question with one word, then that's a stupid fucking rule. I didn't elaborate because there were so many mistakes going on there that I felt it would only distract.

So:

No, they aren't broadcasting from Central Park. It's Zuccotti Park/Liberty Plaza
No, we weren't talking about wikileaks. We were talking about hipster activists generally.
No, I wasn't confusing wikileaks with the Occupiers. I actually know a number of the media people in Zuccotti Park personally, never met Julian Assange.

[Nonny J. Nonnington, Esq.]

Originally Posted by mswas

It's journalism. It's funny how everybody hates wikileaks for just being straight up journalism.

The New York Times did not publish the Pentagon Papers. True story.

[Doc Cathode]

I am just posting to subscribe, as I find this thread very amusing.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Doc Cathode

I am just posting to subscribe, as I find this thread very amusing.

You will most likely derive the most benefit from it, then.

mswas: since I don't follow NYC happenings on even a daily basis, you need to specify your parks. When you say park and live in NYC, I assume Central Park. We rubes unlucky enough to not live in the City of Enlightenment are so ignorant that way. Forgive me, but I believe Assange operates out of Europe, not any park in NYC. I am obviously missing some pieces to this puzzle, but just going by what you have posted here, it seems that you are saying that --well, I'm not altogether sure. Let's review:

Originally Posted by mswas

They just started a global revolution and are running an international media news network out of a park. Yeah...lazy stupid gits.

Since this thread's topic is WIKILEAKS, I assumed you meant the fine people employed at their Department of Truth and Justice. So, like I said--are you conflating the two groups: Occupiers and Wikileaks people? You say no. Seems like you still are to me-WHO is operating out of Zuttifrutti park? And what are they doing, besides harassing the good people who are employed at various bank branches?

Plus, where did you get the notion that journalism is unedited, unprocessed, decontextualized information? Journalism exists for several reasons, one of them being the delivery of concise, timely information in a format that is comprehensible to the reader. Wikileaks is not that, not by a long shot. I'll be the first to agree with you that a LOT of current journalism sucks, but what wikileaks does is NOT journalism.

[mswas]

See Fenris, your modding just caused controversy.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by mswas

then McNutty made up a whole bunch of shit I didn't even say, and you joined in on deriding that

No, what happened was that I correctly inferred what you meant by "this", then you explicitly confirmed that my inference was correct, then you later denied that that's what you meant because those weren't your exact words (I think you must have forgotten explicitly clarifying it). It was pathetic and I don't know why you're bringing it up here.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by McNutty

No, what happened was that I correctly inferred what you meant by "this", then you explicitly confirmed that my inference was correct, then you later denied that that's what you meant because those weren't your exact words (I think you must have forgotten explicitly clarifying it). It was pathetic and I don't know why you're bringing it up here.

Sticks a fork in the thread. When Eleanor starts expressing her insecurity unbidden and McNutty shows up to troll, its done.

The common thread is irrational anger due to an inability to read for context.

I'm out froth all you want. Take your petty frustrations from day to day life out on my virtualness.

[Argument Clinic]

No you didn't

[Colonel Plink]

If Julian Assange would take pistol-whipping as legal tender, I'd pay him in full.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Colonel Plink

If Julian Assange would take pistol-whipping as legal tender, I'd pay him in full.

Yeah, fuck that shit, it's patriotic to look the other way while people who work in the government do evil shit!

[Colonel Plink]

Originally Posted by mswas

Yeah, fuck that shit, it's patriotic to look the other way while people who work in the government do evil shit!

Like he or his whining little cunt-army are going to change anything.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Colonel Plink

Like he or his whining little cunt-army are going to change anything.

Yeah, better to not actually give a shit or care about anything.

I'll remember this when you whine when they come to take your guns. Even if you do the whining with the trigger.

[Colonel Plink]

Originally Posted by mswas

Yeah, better to not actually give a shit or care about anything.

I'll remember this when you whine when they come to take your guns. Even if you do the whining with the trigger.

Even I'm not that paranoid.

There's caring. There's giving a shit. Then there's rank Capitalism masquerading as Altruism.

Julian Assange makes his living off of stolen property. Fuck him.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Colonel Plink

Even I'm not that paranoid.

There's caring. There's giving a shit. Then there's rank Capitalism masquerading as Altruism.

Julian Assange makes his living off of stolen property. Fuck him.

Fair point. I guess I don't give a shit about Assange, but I do care about the mission.

[Wolf Larsen]

Wikileaks wants to play with the big kids and is now all butthurt that the big kids play for keeps.

If Assange was American he'd be up on treason charges and I'd vote to hang.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Wolf Larsen

Wikileaks wants to play with the big kids and is now all butthurt that the big kids play for keeps.

If Assange was American he'd be up on treason charges and I'd vote to hang.

It'd probably be a great thing if they hanged him. It would advance the cause immeasurably.

[Wolf Larsen]

I'm totally ok with finding out.

[mswas]

Martyrs can be useful.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by mswas

Sticks a fork in the thread. When Eleanor starts expressing her insecurity unbidden and McNutty shows up to troll, its done.

Huh?

The common thread is irrational anger due to an inability to read for context.

I'm out froth all you want. Take your petty frustrations from day to day life out on my virtualness.

No, the common thread is your lack of clarity and your closed-mindedness in general. Who else says stuff like "I know some bloggers and so I'll believe them over journalists" and expects to be taken seriously?

Originally Posted by mswas

No. I believe that corporate owned media isn't significantly more useful as a source of information than blogs.

So yeah, when my friend is in Tunisia or Haiti and telling me about what's going on via his blog, yeah, I am going to put more faith in what he is writing than what I read in anything owned by Rupert Murdoch.

And then you careen off into gun paranoia. Nobody is even thinking of taking away Plink's guns-or anyone else's. Where do you get this stuff from--your friends' blogs?

I don't know what "I'm out froth all you want." means. Perhaps you should turn off auto-correct on your mobile device.

[Colonel Plink]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Huh?



No, the common thread is your lack of clarity and your closed-mindedness in general. Who else says stuff like "I know some bloggers and so I'll believe them over journalists" and expects to be taken seriously?

And then you careen off into gun paranoia. Nobody is even thinking of taking away Plink's guns-or anyone else's. Where do you get this stuff from--your friends' blogs?

I don't know what "I'm out froth all you want." means. Perhaps you should turn off auto-correct on your mobile device.

Marry me.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Colonel Plink

Marry me.

<blushes> That's the nicest thing anyone said to me all week. Or even last week. I can't marry you, darling, because you're married. Oh, wait-so I am. But I'll cyber date you here.


Just don't tell your brothers. They may get jealous.

[WednesdayAddams]

Please... not in PPR. Get a room, guys, preferably somewhere in one of the Mafia forums (I never go there...)

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Please... not in PPR. Get a room, guys, preferably somewhere in one of the Mafia forums (I never go there...)

Oh, heavens to Betsy, Wenz! This is me were talking about. He'll be lucky if we share a soda straw down at the malt shop.*









*this is a total lie, but I don't want to make you feel uncomfortable.

[CaveMike]

Originally Posted by mswas

Sure, people can still do wire transfers. Perhaps Wikileaks has the proper pulpit to teach people how to do that.

Couldn't someone set up a PayPal proxy in the US? Collect donations and then wire them directly?


In any case, it's not clear that the drop in donation revenues is due to banking restrictions as much as a lack of activity by Wikileaks.

There was a journalist from the Guardian on the BBC today suggesting that Wikileak's strict hierarchy has made it beholden to Assange's personality and personal life. He claimed Assange has alienated each of the newspapers that originally worked with him and that Assange seems to have lost interest in the cause.

[WednesdayAddams]

I'm not uncomfortable! You're hijacking this already ridiculous thread with... with... flirting! GAH! The only reason I'd settle for Boxing is because I can't bring myself to shoot either of you. GODDAMMIT.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by CaveMike

There was a journalist from the Guardian on the BBC today suggesting that Wikileak's strict hierarchy has made it beholden to Assange's personality and personal life. He claimed Assange has alienated each of the newspapers that originally worked with him and that Assange seems to have lost interest in the cause.

Interesting. Link? I've said for a long time Assange acts like nothing so Mich as a man with a grudge; his primary goal is not journalism but to damage the US government as much as possible.

[CaveMike]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Interesting. Link?

Here is the audio; I did not find a transcript: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kv558#p00lc8pd
Listening again, I should mention that the Guardian guy is pushing a Wikileaks book. He obviously has an agenda as well.

I should note that the volume slider on the BBC player goes to 11.

[Poo]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I'm not uncomfortable! You're hijacking this already ridiculous thread with... with... flirting! GAH! The only reason I'd settle for Boxing is because I can't bring myself to shoot either of you. GODDAMMIT.

Oh! Well, six years ago on this board you said the exact opposite. Wait here, I'll go look up a cite.

Unless you have me on ignore, because then you won't see this post. That IS concerning.

[Nonny J. Nonnington, Esq.]

Originally Posted by CaveMike

Couldn't someone set up a PayPal proxy in the US? Collect donations and then wire them directly?

Yes. That's why Lounsbury correctly characterized things the way he did. Alternatively, any prospective bundler may have observed an organization whose primary content contributor is in jail facing the death penalty and whose founder and primary employee is under house arrest and which does not share its financials even with its so-called partners and made the same credit decision the credit card processors did.

I vote for the second of those, because elsewise mswas would do it himself. But he won't take the risk either. He's not an idiot. He just wants other people to be idiots for his convenience.

[CaveMike]

Originally Posted by Nonny J. Nonnington, Esq.

... whose primary content contributor is in jail facing the death penalty...

Wikipedia indicates prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty.

And to pick a nit since it threw me off: Manning is in a prison (military) not a jail.

[Ken Ass]

This is not the Durp and I'm not going to say "Cite"? But can one of you retards at least give a frame of reference for those of us that don't masturbate to Wikilinks?

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by CaveMike

Couldn't someone set up a PayPal proxy in the US? Collect donations and then wire them directly?


In any case, it's not clear that the drop in donation revenues is due to banking restrictions as much as a lack of activity by Wikileaks.

There was a journalist from the Guardian on the BBC today suggesting that Wikileak's strict hierarchy has made it beholden to Assange's personality and personal life. He claimed Assange has alienated each of the newspapers that originally worked with him and that Assange seems to have lost interest in the cause.

You've essentially summarized my sense of things. The refusal of payments providers to deal with him (there are evident potential liability issues) really can only be a marginal hit unless their funding claims are (i) largely fictional, (ii) very much made up of lazy gits who don't have the gumption to walk down to a bank branch and execute a wire. Or spend ten minutes googling and then do so.

I rather suspect that they have been lying about their donations, that the level of support is thin, and they're trying to gin up outrage-based donations leveraging off of a not very coherent story of The Bank Man & US Gov conspiracy. Sort of thing the MSWASes of the world eat up.

As for the Assange personality issue, although the journo has an angle, it dovetails with the break-up in the group, the split by the Germans and others and related accusations re Assange.

[Winston]

Oops, forgot I was on a sock.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

I rather suspect that they have been lying about their donations, that the level of support is thin, and they're trying to gin up outrage-based donations leveraging off of a not very coherent story of The Bank Man & US Gov conspiracy. Sort of thing the MSWASes of the world eat up.

Not really. I don't eat it up. People think that because I talk about something that I have wholly embraced the idea. I got a good topic rolling to see what people thought about it. If it makes you feel good to make up an imaginary me for derision, that's cool, it puts you in the company of the rest of these idiots. I only say this because I hold you in slightly higher esteem than the rest of them.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Nonny J. Nonnington, Esq.

I vote for the second of those, because elsewise mswas would do it himself. But he won't take the risk either. He's not an idiot. He just wants other people to be idiots for his convenience.

Actually it has more to do with my limits on funds. I give money to causes all the time, just not wikileaks. I generally know the people I am funding personally, whether it's a political campaign or development in Haiti. I make it my business to be personally connected to the causes I support. I am not personally connected to wikileaks, nor do I care about Julian Assange's career all that much.

My goals are very different, but I think the work wikileaks does is important, but anonymous does that work too, and other groups can crop up and do the same thing, or individuals can do it.

Wikileaks should just setup a WePay account. www.wepay.com They could setup accounts wherever they wanted, so that they didn't need to collect international payment necessarily, then they could handle the international wire transfers.

I am just more concerned about the concentration of such electronic transaction in so few hands, and would like to bring attention to that.

[Who_me?]

Mswas' nightmare almost occurred. I was in the jury pool for Drake's Wikileaks trial in Baltimore. I was almost disappointed when he agreed to a plea deal.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I'm not uncomfortable! You're hijacking this already ridiculous thread with... with... flirting! GAH! The only reason I'd settle for Boxing is because I can't bring myself to shoot either of you. GODDAMMIT.

Marry me.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Who_me?

Mswas' nightmare almost occurred. I was in the jury pool for Drake's Wikileaks trial in Baltimore. I was almost disappointed when he agreed to a plea deal.

Huh? My nightmare? You don't rate.

[Uthrecht]

Anyways, the weird loss numbers aside, I don't see that a private transaction refusing to do business with a customer is illegal, unless as mentioned it violates civil liberties in some way. And this is international anyway. I suppose it could fall into legalities in Europe somewhere, but it doesn't sound like it.

To that I say, big deal. several alternate online methods have been mentioned, and I've seen plenty of groups and businesses that can get along that way. They might get problems with some of the electronic services that go through banks that want to boycott, but obviously they're getting some influx in, so they just need to identify the banks that are working with them and funnel the electronic service through those.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

Anyways, the weird loss numbers aside, I don't see that a private transaction refusing to do business with a customer is illegal, unless as mentioned it violates civil liberties in some way. And this is international anyway. I suppose it could fall into legalities in Europe somewhere, but it doesn't sound like it.

Probably not illegal. I agree with Lounsbury that this is just Assange's publicity seeking.

To that I say, big deal. several alternate online methods have been mentioned, and I've seen plenty of groups and businesses that can get along that way. They might get problems with some of the electronic services that go through banks that want to boycott, but obviously they're getting some influx in, so they just need to identify the banks that are working with them and funnel the electronic service through those.

Well the friction of a higher cost transaction can eliminate a huge source of their funding which is the casual college kid donating $ 10 or less.

[Lounsbury]

I do note that in the NY Times / IHT there is a longer article that indicates they claim Western Union is also not processing for them. Whether true or not, well that remains to be seen.

At the same time the description of finances and spending is, at best, murky, and it is also cited former collaborators who have recently quite cite his personal control of said finances as an issue, and his secretiveness.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I'm not uncomfortable! You're hijacking this already ridiculous thread with... with... flirting! GAH! The only reason I'd settle for Boxing is because I can't bring myself to shoot either of you. GODDAMMIT.

Oops. You are right. I am sorry. But I will say the flirting was more interesting than this thread, which has now taken on a rollicking air I find humorous. Winny wins with the "I forgot I was a sock".

[Fish]

Originally Posted by quote from The Guardian

WikiLeaks said in a statement: "The blockade is outside of any accountable, public process. It is without democratic oversight or transparency.

"The US government itself found that there were no lawful grounds to add WikiLeaks to a US financial blockade.

"Captain, our irony meter is being pinged."

"Dive, dive!"

Is WikiLeaks subject to an accountable, public process? Does it operate on lawful grounds?

Despite the characterization, I'm occasionally sympathetic to WikiLeaks' stated goals of exposing corruption (though not necessarily their methods). I'm just not convinced that being right is the same as being legal.

[mswas]

No, that which is legal is often at odds with that which is right.

[Fish]

That which is legal is often at odds with that which is wrong, too.

[Fenris]

Despite the characterization, I'm occasionally sympathetic to WikiLeaks' stated goals of exposing corruption (though not necessarily their methods).

The problem is that they define corruption as "Dur...will it get us headlines? It will?! Den dey is korrupt!!! "

For example, releasing a metric fuckton of diplomatic e-mails which didn't prove corruption or hypocrisy...just that diplomats, like everyone else, sometimes talk about people behind their back (gasp!!!) did nothing to advance their mission, only their publicity.

This is neither journalism or...really anything other than the mentality of ten-year olds pissing on a wall.

[ulfhjorr]

Originally Posted by Fenris

This is neither journalism or...really anything other than the mentality of ten-year olds pissing on a wall.

To be fair, ten-year olds pissing on a wall is still well above the bar set for journalistic standards by FoxNews.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Fenris

The problem is that they define corruption as "Dur...will it get us headlines? It will?! Den dey is korrupt!!! "

For example, releasing a metric fuckton of diplomatic e-mails which didn't prove corruption or hypocrisy...just that diplomats, like everyone else, sometimes talk about people behind their back (gasp!!!) did nothing to advance their mission, only their publicity.

This is neither journalism or...really anything other than the mentality of ten-year olds pissing on a wall.

The job of diplomats may be fairly defined as talking about people behind their back. I mean I talk to diplomats quite a lot and I even saw myself cited (thank god indirectly) as well as people I know cited in such things. This was not a surprise.

Their actions there were... perverse. In many ways they confirmed that US diplomatic positions in private... pretty much look like those in public. A massive data dump was not journalism, and the subsequent unscreened release fuck-up (which showed in my mind sheer incompetence and lack of real ethics) have without doubt put into danger some persons who were of the sort Wikileaks supposedly supports.

I don't know that relative to their supposed mission the leak really served any particular purpose as such.