Wrong.
That's the other guy, not me.
You're the one who jumps to the conclusion that Wikileaks must be compromised or infiltrated but everything you said to support that conclusion isn't the solid evidence you think it is. I've seen your type before in other Wikileaks threads. And it's not even a Wikileaks threads per se, it's a thread about the Berat e-mails.
You said Assange should have posted a public statement before the update of the 'Stochastic Terminator' algorithm on October 12th, your words :
"The tweet you linked you are likely unaware of the potential problems with updating the algorithim conveniently a couple days before Assange's internet is cut, having no statement from Assange regarding said change ( which he always has statements if you where aware of how wikileaks worked before October."
Can you tell us why you think Julian Assange should have posted a statement on the update of the 'Stochastic Terminator' before every update of the algorithm? They updated it before October 15/16 and after October 15/16, I think they announced an update of the algorithm four or five times total. It's supposed to be an algorithm that reacts to the news coverage of the leaks and change its selection of e-mails accordingly. It's the first time they used something like that and usually when it's the first time for any technical project it will need some adjustments.
I don't see how the lack of an official statement from Assange regarding the update of the algorithm is supposed to be considered suspicious.
Why do you believe that updating the 'Stochastic Terminator' algorithm for the Podesta e-mails is a significant change in Wikileaks? Let me quote Julian Assange again:
"So this time we started a different strategy which was to write an algorithm called a Stochastic Terminator which is designed to be unpredictable and to adjust how much it publishes and what it selects based upon what we as human beings suggest to it but also based upon what it reads in the news. So it selects the emails to be published and publishes them each day and we started doing that on the 7th of October"
I don't know what the update(s) consisted of – and you don't either – but updating the 'Stochastic Terminator' algorithm could mean it wasn't working as well as they thought it would and they needed to make a few changes to it so that each next batch of e-mails they released potentially had more impact than the previous ones or that it followed a certain pattern to hook more people in certain regions of the internet because they knew the mainstream media would try to ignore all of it.
I listened to an interview with a reporter who said she noticed patterns in the release of e-mails, in the first ones there were many revealing the collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, then it moved to corruption, then the uranium company, etc. She said it wasn't as random as one would think.
>The algorithm was changed significantly on the 12th, I believe, with no official statement. Three days before his internet was shut off. Why you are linking the statment on the 7th is beyond me.
And how do you know that the algorithm was changed significantly?
That quote (from the October 26 phone call at that conference in Argentina) explains what the 'Stochastic Terminator' algorithm is supposed to be: it's supposed to read the news and decide what e-mails it will release next, and it's the first time they ever used something like that.
If you thought something like that was going to work perfectly from the very first day when they couldn't test it beforehand for obvious reasons – how can one simulate the media coverage of an event like the release of the Podesta e-mails in a computer model? – then you must have no real life experience in anything.
Of all the things I've read here that supposedly prove the Wikileaks-is-compromised meme this lack of an official statement on the update of the 'Stochastic Terminator' algorithm is probably the weakest.
You could have at least admitted that the 2nd part of the DNC e-mails in early November contained some good revelations, like the non-aggression pact between Sanders and Clinton.
