YEAR ZERO

I can't get hyped over anything Wikileaks says. They've jumped the shark quite some time ago.

Aren't they basically just another one of Trump's propaganda offices at this point?

SOON

You should be thanking them for exposing the mass corruption in the democratic party, and using this extremely rare opportunity to bring the "moderate" dems and weak libs over to true leftism.

these
it'll just be some stupid FEMA death camps shit probably

I do dig a lot of that, and it's good that they were willing to publish it. That being said, at this point even certain sections of the mainstream media seem to be more committed to independent investigative journalism than WikiLeaks and they're pretty clearly getting intel from some doubtful sources. They're kinda up their own ass and I kinda trust them less than I might have.

I think you have the wrong idea about what WikiLeaks is. It's not about investigative journalism for them, it's about being a shield for whistleblowers. Their goal is to get important information out to as many eyeballs as possible, and that includes promoting/hyping the information which some may see as distasteful.

That's the key part though
not just deranged ramblings from uncertain sources

If they exposed their sources, they'd be done. No one would ever come to them again. We have to assume that they do at least some vetting on information before it's published.

CTR get out

Isn't Assange dead?

Maybe
I don't think there's been any hard evidence that he's actually alive since the embassy incident

He's either compromised or an idiot, or both.

Wikileaks however is long gone now. Just a honeypot for the CIA.

Also could be dead or held hostage by the CIA or some shit. Ecuador will 'give him up' shortly.

...

Would not reccomend downloading anythinh wikileaks posts. Could include tracking software from the CIA.

I can guarentee this will turn out to be a load of shit anyway. They haven't held any hopeful promise in the past half year.

It's an assumption that I'm less than willing to make, given that it's pretty clear that one of their major sources was the DNC hack. That hack was pretty much confirmed to be done by hackers who are Russian-affiliated at the minimum. I'm not denying that most, or even all of it is true. What I am saying, however, is that they're taking stuff that should be published with serious reservations and doing none of the above while pandering to conspiracy theorists.

The Panama Papers, on the other hand, went through nominally trustworthy sources and have been carefully checked. Their source, of course, remains anonymous but was still carefully checked in a way that makes sure he or she didn't manipulate all of that stuff. You can shit on the mainstream media all you want for their irresponsibility, corporate affiliations, and blind spots, but at the same time I'll take the word of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and their vetting procedures over that of vitamin C-deficient Julian Assange and his quest to remain relevant.

Cambridge Analytica fuck off

Honestly I wish I was CTR, at least then I'd be making some returns on my shitty hobbies and half-baked opinions

No it wasn't, you fucking retard. Any teenager could have done it.

CTR get out.

The fuck is this and why should I care

time.com/4625301/cia-russia-wikileaks-dnc-hacking/

theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

It's not 100% certain, but at the same time there's pretty good circumstantial evidence to suggest that there was a certain degree of involvement.

Is it just me, or are the Cambridge Analytica bots getting more complex than usual? ;-)

I take that back

Also
Why isn't this hack blackballed, again?

What if it's just his well organized fap folder? Assange has a a lot of spare time being in the embassy unfortunately. You have to wonder what he is doing when he is not on air.

Yeah, I'll concede that. A lot of it is flat-out dem hysteria and deflectionism. However, I will still hold that there's a decent amount of circumstantial evidence, and in general Wikileak's sourcing is pretty dubious and they seem more interested in staying relevant than actually trying to promote truth. I tend to suspect them out of habit, but you're probably not wrong there.

i'll go self-crit now ;-)

no, it's bullshit.