I mean, that’s not entirely true. Yeah, there has been a long history of US based organizations, particularly governmental ones, trying to stop Wikileaks, capture Snowden, and generally just punish whistleblowers so brutally is deters anyone else from doing it.

But that doesn’t mean that as the years went on, the mission of Wikileaks changed as they seemed to adopt a particular goal that wasn’t just “shining a light on corruption.”

So it’s not as simple as “it’s a Russian asset” and it’s not as simple as “they’re being smeared for spilling govt secrets.” It’s a mixture of the two, but not only, and not entirely.

[–] SLfgb@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're right, it does not mean the mission of WikiLeaks changed. It clearly hasn't. They still have never had to retract a single document or story.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But weren’t some of the Clinton email leaks proven to be planted?

[–] SLfgb@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The Clinton emails were first released by the State Department under FOIA. (WikiLeaks were first to publish the different archives of the Podesta email leak and the DNC email leak.) Both WL and the Wall Street Journal each made the Clinton emails into a searchable database.
WikiLeaks has never had to retract a single document or story.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

Ah, I was confusing the fact that the right wing internet trolls planted faked emails among the Wikileaks dump. Misremembered