[softcactus]

Just finished reading through the whole thing. I am curious which part changed your opinion on him? I'll go through my thoughts:

1. I don't think whistleblower protection would have applied anyways since what the government was doing was technically legal.

2. Snowden seems like an asshole and a nightmare to work with, but I don't think that should factor in to the credibility of any arguments he makes which are backed up with sufficient evidence.

3. The biggest thing that changed his perception for me was how much he leaked. It would have been better if he had only gone after documents that pertained to privacy of US citizens.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

I thought that he had no protections and only leaked what supported his claims. I learned that not only did he not pursue proper channels, he leaked a lot more than required. I have no more good faith left for him. Between this report, and working in the same industry, I no longer believe anything that he says. Whatever good might have come out of this is overshadowed by the harm that he caused.

[NaturalPhallacy]

He gave it to the Intercept/Guardian and let them decide what to publish.

So what it comes down to is would you rather he decide what the public gets to know, or journalists?

I think letting the journalists decide was a decent call. It's what journalists are for.

[softcactus]

That's a fair assessment. I don't think I have enough information to determine either way.