I've been very torn over how the WL controversy continues to unfold. The conflict is that I believe much of this information should be available to the public. Transparency is a good thing, but the more I look at this, the more I feel like this should not be mistaken for true transparency.
How to feel about Assange's "warning shot" and "poison pill?" Is information for the people or is it to be used as leverage?
It seems clear after this week, that he hordes the most sensitive information. This is exactly what I was affraid of happening. I said before, and I mean it: This isn't transparency.
Assange is exactly what he claims to loathe. He obviously recognizes the power of withheld information. Why share thee full cables with 5 news outlets, but not post them in full? Why make poison pill threats? Why not just post it up on the site?
Asange himself talks about the human collateral damage in Kenya. A bogus election leaked, and a revolt sounds great until 1,300 are dead and over 200,000 are displaced. This isn't theoretical, and Assange himself takes credit for it--cooly citing the price in blood as "a statistic." Isn't this humans as numbers mentality the exact evil he's claims to fight?
Same goes for the Afghans who gave info to the US. Asange claims that he would love leaked info on AQ or the Taliban. He also claims to be a champion of the rights of the whistle-blowers. How can one resolve these contradictions? The informants who gave info on the Taliban to the US were whistle-blowers! Why does he not advocate for them? This point apparently caused internal conflict in the organization.
Manning is "unfortunate collateral" too according to another interview with the man. This is our moral police? Our champion of transpancy? He's the one supposed to guide us away from inhumanity? Who elected this man the arbiter of truth and transparency?
Our generation will bear moral scars from these wars, but our real crime is compacency. WL is the easy way, not the right way. It's our way to assauge the guilt through blame. In the end, the villians are aways the government, the corporations, the banks; it's always
them, but never
us. It's never our total lack of civic participation, oversight, or consumer advocacy.
So here's my compass; here is how I will decide if the right information the wrong way is worth it: If WL actually causes public participation. Otherwise, it's just people pissed off sitting at their computer while others elswhere in the world are "unfortunate collateral." I'd like to see real transparancy in the form of giving more power to the Freedom of Information Act. I'd like to see Net Neutrality protected. In fact, Assange may have created the exact excuse for the GOP to push this further. Another reason I'm upset. But if people can only be bothered to surf the web, and not know their elected reps names (let alone write them a personal letter or call their phone), then there is a word for it.
Put best by my friend in response to people changing their profile pics to cartoon characters to raise awareness of child abuse.
Quote:"Slacktivism - The act of participating in obviously pointless activities as an expedient alternative to actually expending effort to fix a problem. (e.g. - Changing your profile pic to a cartoon. e.g. - pink ribbons for breast cancer)"
And...
e.g. - Mistaking blame for accountability because it's easier.
A
R
T
