[harry8]

I think this is nonsense?

As far as I know there is zero evidence that wikileaks did not publish everything newsworthy that they were given regardless of who it helped or hindered.

Anyone have anything credible showing they suppressed anything ever?

[whoitwas]

Wikileaks canary died a long, long time ago. Nothing from them has been trustworthy for a long time.

[GolfPopper]

I thought it was the warrant canary of their email provider (Riseup) that died in 2016. Did Wikileaks ever even have a canary?

Riseup currently has a canary[1], they state that it would not trigger for "gag orders, FISA court orders, National Security Letters" which seems like it makes it pretty useless.

1. https://riseup.net/en/canary

[whoitwas]

From wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks_talk:PGP_Keys

[b112]

This says nothing about it being a canary. All canaries are stated as such.

Instead, all I see is some debate about PGP.

I can believe that only one submission ever used it. PGP is not friendly to people who barely undersrand how computers work (99.999% of the population), and some panicking whistleblower isn't interested in taking a layman's course in crypto to send some docs.

So why would wikileaks renew their useless(from their perspective) PGP key?

[edm0nd]

Wikileaks in general (as a website) has been dead for years now. Just go look at the website.

Last update in the Leaks section is from 2018.

Last update in the News section is from 2021.

I'm interested to see if Assange brings it back to life.

[rtpg]

I thought there was some story about Wikileaks receiving a bunch of stuff regarding Russian gov't officials and there was internal debate in the org and it ended up not being published. Was that just a made up story?

[bardan]

It isn't made up. It was during one of the email leaks when the org was stretched to it's limits. Suddenly they get these documents that they don't have time to fully parse and don't look very interesting anyway. Immediately there are dozens of articles put out simultaneously about how Wikileaks refused to publish Russian documents. I guess they learned about the documents being passed to Wikileaks in the first place, wonder who let them know?

The documents were later published elsewhere and nobody cared because they were uninteresting.

[rtpg]

I mean all of their leaks are politically motivated, they are axiomatically a cutout. acting scandalized that someone tried to leak stuff is weird. I get the overworked argument in theory, but odd they didn’t publish it at all in the end.

[bardan]

As I mentioned they were in the middle of one of the biggest releases in their history, the submitted documents didn't look interesting and indeed when they were published nobody cared. Do you know what they were? Publishers won't just publish any old trash you send them.

[GolfPopper]

Foreign Policy: WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign

https://archive.is/ztpnZ

[harry8]

There is no claim here of documents or a story being suppressed by wikileaks. The documents and one side of the conversation were provided to ForeignPolicy.com. The anti-wikileaks angle immediately fizzes in the opening paragraphs.

WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy.

The logs, which were provided to FP, only included WikiLeaks’s side of the conversation.

“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.

“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache.

[rendall]

404 not found

[GolfPopper]

Fixed, ty.