Slog
News & ArtsMonday, December 6, 2010
Politics / News / Media Required Reading: Clay Shirky on WikiLeaks
Posted by Anthony Hecht on Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:53 PM
Clay Shirky absolutely nails it regarding WikiLeaks. Read the whole thing, but some choice excerpts (emphasis mine):
I am conflicted about the right balance between the visibility required for counter-democracy and the need for private speech among international actors. Here’s what I’m not conflicted about: When authorities can’t get what they want by working within the law, the right answer is not to work outside the law. The right answer is that they can’t get what they want.
The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us “You went after Wikileaks’ domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant and all targeting overseas entities, simply because you decided you don’t like the site. If that’s the way governments get to behave, we can live with that.”
What's been bothering me is that the current story seems to be following an arc where "if we just get this one guy, knock down this one website, everything will be back to normal." Leak plugged, problem solved. Of course this is stupid, and completely misses the point. The point is that information travels far too freely now to be kept secret for very long. This will happen again. And again.
It's the same attitude the TSA seems to take. Shoe bomb? Okay, no shoes. Problem solved. Liquids? Crap. Okay, no liquids! Underwear bomb?! Backscatter! It's reactive and it completely misses the point, too.
So our reaction to WikiLeaks will probably be like that: We'll tighten everything down, pass over-reaching laws that make it even harder to get the real story on what our government is doing in our name, and treat the whole world (including our own citizens) as criminals before they've done anything, all in the name of preventing another insert-tragedy-or-outrage-here.
Assange's personal story is also a distraction, and the mainstream media (which has benefited enormously from WikiLeaks' work) is eating it up. The most interesting question about him is not his personal life but his motive: Is he trying to make the U.S. government more transparent (good), or is he trying to bring it down (bad)?
In related news, Facebook (I know!) seems to stand largely alone in publicly and plainly saying that they're not taking the WikiLeaks page down. Andrew Noyes, Facebook's Manager of Public Policy Communications tells ReadWriteWeb:
The Wikileaks Facebook Page does not violate our content standards nor have we encountered any material posted on the page that violates our policies.
Too bad our government doesn't take its own policies (otherwise known as laws) so seriously.
1
Assange's mother said something the other day to the effect of "he's just fighting baddies" which reminded me so much of what Phoenix Jones' godmother said about him going out to do good deeds. Julian Assange is a lot like Jones and the other RLSH- he's doing what he can in a system the authorities have utterly failed and the rest of us are amused, inspired and more than a little concerned it's going to get him killed.
Rock on, wiki-superhero, rock on.
Rock on, wiki-superhero, rock on.
2
And they say you don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off an 'ole Lone Ranger
And you don't RELEASE SECRET US TARGETS TO TERRORISTS YOU DUM NETHERLANDING DUNCE!
http://www.popmodal.com/video/3186/Jim-C…
5
You know why I think there's still hope.
Just now, I lit up my Char-Broil mini gas grill to roast some brats.
I took a match from the Red/White/Blue and Brown-striped box labelled "Large Kitchen Matches" and I noticed that there was a white tip on the red head of the match.
Could it be...yes, these were Strike-Anywhere matches. So, I scraped it on the floor of my patio and inserted it into the little pilot hole at the base of my bar-b-que.
What's so great? It's great that the weinnies haven't yet outlawed strike anywhere matches. They're so tremendously dangerous. Kids can get them, take them outside and start fires and burn themselves. Yet, I have a box, store bought, no black market. USA!
6
Honestly, everyone is overreacting to this. Everyone. Does anyone think that diplomats don't talk shit about other diplomats and governments? Did anyone really think the Saudis and others aren't scared shitless about a nuclear Iran and want anyone other than themselves to take care of it? Did anyone not know that Qaddafi had a weird blonde amazon fetish? Hello? Do you open your eyes and read the news critically? Oh shit, you don't? Never mind. Yeah... wikileaks, crazy information revolution.
7
Right-wingers the world 'round are proud of the United States' actions against WikiLeaks. They know a good fascist when they see one. The definition of fascism is an unaccountable and/or authoritarian government in an unholy, incestuous relationship with ghoulish, ultra-capitalist oligarchs and plutocrats, all of whom are determined to subjugate and plunder the 99% of their population who have been rendered powerless or condemned as fugitives.
Sound familiar? Can you say "TSA" or "FBI" or "RICO Act?" -- Fascistic assaults on freedom reign.
One percent of the people in this country control fifty percent of its wealth.
Repeat: 1% of the people in the U.S. control 50% of the wealth in this country.
This same 1% received 24% of pre-tax income in 2007, but received only 9% in 1976.
From 2002 to 2007, their income increased 10% per year.
These super-rich parasites are definitely in need of more tax breaks financed by the rest of us, right? My question is how long are this nation's criminally gullible voters going to continue to bury their heads in the sand, allowing oligarchs and plutocrats to rub their noses in the fact that they are utterly, completely powerless?
Elections used to offer something of a remedy for plutocracy and oligarchy -- but not any more. Elections in this country were turned into Silent Auctions when the U.S. supreme court declared that corporations are people, and are entitled to the same free-speech protections as human beings -- a completely absurd perversion of "human rights."
I'm mystified that anyone could be as obtuse as the people in the so-called "tea party." They actually believe the 1% are looking out for ordinary peoples' interests. What a joke.
The 1% want the rest of us to die from lack of food, clothing, housing, health care and adequate living conditions. Unfortunately for that 1%, when we are gone, they will have nobody to do their work, lick out their toilet bowls or pay their taxes for them. In this way, they are mindless parasites that kill their hosts.
If you're a right winger determined to flame me, don't clutter up this valuable real estate with your bollocks. With a modicum of research you can find me, but be sure to read my Privacy Agreement -- it means precisely what it says.
More...
Sound familiar? Can you say "TSA" or "FBI" or "RICO Act?" -- Fascistic assaults on freedom reign.
One percent of the people in this country control fifty percent of its wealth.
Repeat: 1% of the people in the U.S. control 50% of the wealth in this country.
This same 1% received 24% of pre-tax income in 2007, but received only 9% in 1976.
From 2002 to 2007, their income increased 10% per year.
These super-rich parasites are definitely in need of more tax breaks financed by the rest of us, right? My question is how long are this nation's criminally gullible voters going to continue to bury their heads in the sand, allowing oligarchs and plutocrats to rub their noses in the fact that they are utterly, completely powerless?
Elections used to offer something of a remedy for plutocracy and oligarchy -- but not any more. Elections in this country were turned into Silent Auctions when the U.S. supreme court declared that corporations are people, and are entitled to the same free-speech protections as human beings -- a completely absurd perversion of "human rights."
I'm mystified that anyone could be as obtuse as the people in the so-called "tea party." They actually believe the 1% are looking out for ordinary peoples' interests. What a joke.
The 1% want the rest of us to die from lack of food, clothing, housing, health care and adequate living conditions. Unfortunately for that 1%, when we are gone, they will have nobody to do their work, lick out their toilet bowls or pay their taxes for them. In this way, they are mindless parasites that kill their hosts.
If you're a right winger determined to flame me, don't clutter up this valuable real estate with your bollocks. With a modicum of research you can find me, but be sure to read my Privacy Agreement -- it means precisely what it says.
8
@6, but don't forget, wikileaks has some gold in there to encourage journalists to take an interest. I think that's really a great thing.
And beyond that, to me it's refreshing to see so many more people start to take an interest in news that, you're right, in many instances is not exactly fresh.
But c'mon, who among us thought anything might spark such a large number of people to at least cursorily read such a variety of material on diplomatic affairs, even for what may turn out to be just this moment?
And beyond that, to me it's refreshing to see so many more people start to take an interest in news that, you're right, in many instances is not exactly fresh.
But c'mon, who among us thought anything might spark such a large number of people to at least cursorily read such a variety of material on diplomatic affairs, even for what may turn out to be just this moment?
9
Oh Lordly and Dear Supreme Ruler of the Universe, here's a clue: One man's (Or supreme Ruler's) terrorist is another man's (or S.R.'s) freedom fighter.
#6 we wuv oo, all of oo sexy sexy sef. I am a weird blond's Amazon fetish...oh sorry I mis-read what you typed.
#6 we wuv oo, all of oo sexy sexy sef. I am a weird blond's Amazon fetish...oh sorry I mis-read what you typed.
10
The question this whole affair raises for me is; should a state be held to the same standards as an individual is held to? What is the motivation for an individual to obey the laws, apart from fear of punishment, when states (and their agents) circumvent those same laws on a regular basis and escape punishment?
11
My slightly altered version: Is Assange trying to make the U.S. government more transparent (good), or is he trying to bring down it's current secret obsessed accountable-to-no-one oligarchy (better)?
13
"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested in London, CNN confirms."
I guess now the fun begins?
I guess now the fun begins?
15
So Assange is officially under arrest. Previously they wanted him for questioning but he has turned himself in now that they made it official that they were starting an internation manhunt.
This all brings up the question of why we don't get massive international man-hunts for others who are wanted for sex crimes. Considering all that he did was not wear a condom you wonder how many thousands of people are dispatched every day to find serial rapists right?
This all brings up the question of why we don't get massive international man-hunts for others who are wanted for sex crimes. Considering all that he did was not wear a condom you wonder how many thousands of people are dispatched every day to find serial rapists right?
16
@15 Obviously because the others aren't famous. Assange used the press to make himself famous, and that has consequences. Namely, the public cares when you're accused of a crime so governments have to act. Same as Polanski, just a lesser crime alleged. Fair? Of course not. But evidence of a conspiracy? Only to those who already believe in it.
17
Since the arraignment was in London, the Guardian's a pretty good place for details. They've posted a live update section. My favorite detail so far concerns the national treasure, the director Ken Loach, who along with the fabulous socialite Jemima Khan, exposé-documentarian John Pilger and three others, appeared in court offering to put up bail money for Assange:
3.33pm: My Washington-based colleague Richard Adams has been watching CNN's coverage. He spotted this gem:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010…
When Ken Loach appeared leaving the courtroom just now, to much excitement, it was shown live on cable news here and CNN were utterly stumped. "Who was that gentleman? It may be Julian Assange's attorney, we're trying to find out."
19
What is so sad is everyone I know (re: TSA, Wikileaks, etc) is like "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Ha ha! I just saw Harry Potter and they use that very line!! Our government is 'Delores Umbridge'!!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (19) RSS