WikiLeaks rival open for business as editors turn on Assange

Ok then, I give up!

Can I please have ideas on the following :

1) Why they're going to be controlled by MSM.
2) Evidence of any one of the people involved in this being dodgy or untrustworthy.
3) Why they don't seem to deserve a chance even though they've not released a single thing yet.


Since when did anything get written off without any evidence at all of it being corrupted? Have we just become completely cynical and lost all hope?

reply to post by Hitoshura


I gave sound reasoning. Just look at the treatment of the Wikileaks leaks by the media. There was insane and explosive leaks and 99 percent of them have been ignored. The ones that have been talked about are buried. MSM would rather talk about how Assange is inexplicable treasonous. So this OpenLeaks M.O. is to work hand in hand with the MSM (so they can't get the outcries of treason, so that won't be a problem) so if they have legit leaks they won't ever reach us because the only open channel is the MSM and if they are reported it is likely (we will see) that they will be controlled and part of an agenda. The MSM will release the info and pander to the left saying "oh this is a leak, we don't want you to see this (giving each other the wink wink nudge nudge) all the while admonishing this OpenLeaks as slight as possible. If they actually care at all about the leaks from this site you will know its a facade, because the site doing it legit and with no fear caught nothing but hell from the MSM.

Do you trust the MSM? Will you trust a "leaked" doc that only reaches you after it has gone through MSM?
They destroy their legitimacy this way.. probably to seem more journalistic. Ironically it is only more journalistic by todays standards of journalism. Wikileaks does it old school and they do it right.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
So this OpenLeaks M.O. is to work hand in hand with the MSM (so they can't get the outcries of treason, so that won't be a problem) so if they have legit leaks they won't ever reach us because the only open channel is the MSM and if they are reported it is likely (we will see) that they will be controlled and part of an agenda.

This is what I've been trying to say though : it's not just the MSM they're working with. How are groups like Unions and Human Rights Groups MSM? And as for the only open channel, again, it says on their site :

"We give them the control to either allow the entire OpenLeaks community access to the data, ensuring that it is analyzed and possibly published, or to leak to a specific participant within the community."

So if OpenLeaks start getting well known, the moment something is leaked to their community it'll be all over the internet right? Cutting out the MSM, just like Wikileaks.

Maybe I'm just tired and missing something here, I've been up most of the night. Will try and figure this more later, and have a proper read of their site so I'm clearer on what I'm saying. (or clearer on what I'm missing that you guys aren't.)

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by plexus

 

A lot of people accused Wikileaks of being a disinfo site. I think clearly, from the way they have cut off their funding, and gone after Assange, and generally locked that site the hell down, it was not a disinfo site. Personally, I think this whole new mess is much more likely to be a CIA trap/disinfo site.

Just sayin'. And its just gut instinct too, no inside info, so I am not claiming to have any factual info here. Just my opinion, my own instinct. It smells rotten to me.

Star for you mate, i couldn't agree more.

I'd say there is a strong possibility that this new site is an intel setup job, to reduce the effects and influence of WL.

Fishy, very fishy.

Originally posted by zorgon
So ummm did Wiki Leaks actually give us anything useful out of those 250,000 files?

Answer ... NO. Promises of forthcoming information that would lead to thousands of arrests ... earthshattering news ... blah blah blah. But all we got was school-girl type information ... different countries representatives dis'n each other behind the others backs; and information that different countries spy on the UN (with good reason!! They'd better! The UN is a corrupt cesspool)

When Daniel came up with the idea, he said in an interview, how the new organization would work.

Interested parties would have to pay an amount of 4 digits to get the material. If smaller papers want to get it, they can have it for a smaller amount, but also get restricted material.

I don't say, that this could not work or that it is of no use, but it surely is not the same as the original idea.
The question is to me, why anybody should give them material at all, since they only offer "anonymity" to the whistleblowers.

I am not a fan of John Young, but these words to the openleaks-team made me wonder, if he is right:

Let me know how best to support your absolutely hopeless endeavor as it travels from enthusiasm to embarassment to disaster to calamity to catastrophe to harm maximization to recrimination to crocodile tears of apology to taking a well-paid job with what used to be the enemy. This is not about WL.

reply to post by Hitoshura


Let a specific participant know?
So are the Blackmail-by-proxy Inc.?

I just can't see how this system could lead to anything but corruption.

reply to post by FlyersFan



I think they have done a lot.
And Tunisia coincidentally boiled over about the time the Wikileaks cables were released. It was coming but WL may have been the catalyst.
You guys are too impatient, things don't happen in an instant.

www.dailymail.co.uk...