Wikileaks - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Starhammer wrote:

Whoa, we have a Brazillian admin?

Rumor has it he was born underneath an amber moon...

Edited by Slartibartfast - December 26 2010 at 19:40

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Whoa, we have a Brazillian admin?

Atkingani wrote:

I don't know if someone was, is, has been or will be killed due to Wikileaks but at least here in Brazil a certain number of reputations are dead now.

Like whose, for example? Question

I don't know if someone was, is, has been or will be killed due to Wikileaks but at least here in Brazil a certain number of reputations are dead now.

Edited by Atkingani - December 25 2010 at 11:15

Guigo

~~~~~~

SolarLuna96 wrote:

I voted the second option, not because I agree with it, but because the government will probably put everyone who voted option 1 in jail.

LOL

Slartibartfast wrote:

The obvious answer is if the information is merely embarrassing then too bad. If someone gets hurt or killed then it's bad.

this

I know that I may be too fond of conspiracy theories now and then, but I still have the hunch that there is something more behind this. I can't help it...

Generally I think it's a good thing, but there is a large caveat.

The way Wikileaks handles it is dubious because there are a lot of documents that are inherantly dangerous to the public when published indescriminately, as is being done.

It's not a problem that is addressed easily, the resources needed to sift the in formation would be enormous.

But I do feel that the way it's handled now owes less to disclosure of dubious practices but to the pandering to people's 'Schadenfreude'. And that's a bit cheap and nasty.

Edited by npjnpj - December 22 2010 at 07:22

someone_else wrote:

Both. Sometimes it may be good to expose what happens behind the curtains, but I am a bit suspicious (not paranoid!): I think that this whole Wikileaks thing has been set up by the U.S. government to give them a reason to seize control over the internet.

And that's why I vote for bad.

I don't know. I'm not a big fan of government conspiracies to be honest, and Assange's history as a hacker completely dissociates him from being the government's secret champion. I agree with you in part, however, because he is going to draw negative attention to the internet as a method of free speech. I don't really care about "exposing" the government for doing "bad" things either. It's a government! All governments do dishonest things and that is something that is intrinsic to the very thing that is a government. It's a flawed implementation, but it's also necessary. It seems that Assange is stuck in the "f**k the establishment" mentality, though he is no doubt brilliant, if not because what he does is good or bad but because it's really interesting and causing a huge stir in the way people feel about their security, or lack thereof.

"Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom."
-Kierkegaard

My music blog: endless-sound.blogspot.com

Both. Sometimes it may be good to expose what happens behind the curtains, but I am a bit suspicious (not paranoid!): I think that this whole Wikileaks thing has been set up by the U.S. government to give them a reason to seize control over the internet.

And that's why I vote for bad.

Edited by someone_else - December 21 2010 at 07:59

Poll Question: Wikileaks.... is it good or bad?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Good! Fulfills the duties of a free press	27	[84.38%]
Bad! It causes more harm than good	5	[15.63%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted