World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
How is he a Russian spy?
Wiki leaks are published for all to view, not just Russia.
I wouldn’t characterize him as a Russian spy, more of an asset. Wikileaks selectively released information rather than being the safe harbor for all intelligence leaks that they purported to be.
>Wikileaks selectively released information rather than being the safe harbor for all intelligence leaks that they purported to be.
what makes you think that it was any more than only releasing important leaks? no one cares about the timeclock at mcdonald's on 5th and main.
Curious how all the leaks about Russia were deemed unimportant
curious how you're obsessed with repeating that lie over and over again...
If you say so
keep on obsessively repeating that lie without actually checking it out, then
It’s not a lie, he refused to publish the Kremlin leaks for reasons I found paper thin. Sorry we don’t agree, I’ll refrain from calling you names because what’s the fucking point?
yeah well can you provide a real source for that? maybe other than "one secret person told this paper, and by golly we believe them!"
wasn't he taking asylum in russia? do you really think he should have made enemies there when the US et al were already trying to jail him?
You’re thinking of Snowden. Assange was at an Ecuadorian embassy in London. Two very different cases.
oh. then is there any reason at all to think he got leaks about russia that were worth publishing?
Someone who worked inside Wikileaks certainly felt they were newsworthy
You can read more here
Foreign Policy endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. This was the first time in its 50-year history the magazine endorsed a candidate.
you will forgive me if i don't find your source to be credible in this regard.
I mean, did you see the other guy?
I actually read the piece after checking for bias, and all the most damning stuff is innuendo. it's a nothing burger.
It’s a fact that WL refused to publish the document cache with the justification being that the data was already out in the open but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on. How is that innuendo?
>but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on
it seems to me that it was totally out (or later became totally available), regardless of the reporting that was done. it's innuendo to imply that they refused to publish it for any reason outside of their normal editorial standards.
I agree there is no smoking gun per se, but I find the justification that it would “distract” from the 2016 election leaks to be incredibly flimsy. The rest of the info got out on the internet through sources other than WL.
The refusal to publish also contradicts Assange’s claims in 2010 to publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight. The Kremlin couldn’t fit more squarely into that bucket.
he can still "publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight" without publishing every document about such an institution. any particular document or set of documents may be unable to be verified or not of particular interest or already available through other sources. he didn't promise to publish every byte that mentioned the kremlin regardless of his editorial standards.
oh no! the situation is complex and it's possible that even the best actors had to make some tough decisions.
Are you the actor making the tough decision to knowingly make disingenuous arguments?
lying shill
Me or Julian?
you
Removed, keep it civil.
S A L T Y
shill
I don't agree with the root comment, but Wikileaks has repeatedly ignored leaks of Russian classified info and many of their sources appear to be Russian Intelligence.
GRU basically runs WikiLeaks.
Source: dude, trust me
Lmao. I wasn't born yesterday. There's been years of news on this. That's an extremely poor attempt at gaslighting.
There's been years of propaganda on this.
A guy embarrasses the richest and most powerful people in the world by telling you the dirty secrets they were hiding from you. And when they tell you that it's the messenger who's the enemy, you believe them SMH.
If you're against wikileaks, you're against the rights of journalists and you're opposed to the freedom of information.
Nope. If NYT wants to publish stuff about warrantless wiretapping that's fine. More power to them.
WikiLeaks edited video and text content from day 1. The US Army caught them out several times by just releasing the full video. They didn't even try with the DNC emails, they put sensational headers on them had nothing to do with what was written in the email. Then there's the revelations of the GOP and RUS hacks which somehow have yet to see the light of day.
So yeah after that fumbling attempt at creating propaganda it wasn't exactly a surprise to find out the Russian GRU were essentially running the site by the mid 2010's. Assange went beyond journalism and into foreign agent territory when he edited his stuff out of truthfulness and selectively released documents to influence American politics.
So no you don't get to tie him to investigative journalism like the Panama Papers.