Thread: Wikileaks

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

When people tell ugly people "You can look quite good sometimes" we all know they are being diplomatic, that's how diplomacy works, by being tactful and helping the world rub along with one another.

LMAO.

I'm thinking there's an insurmountable difference between governments keeping secrets about each other when compared to the 'white lies' that help people get along.

When your wife says "Do you still prefer blonds?", recalling that fateful day when you first met. Your wife who happens to be a brunette, yet overheard you describing your perfect partner to your mates.
Sure, you'd say "I did before I met you", and in every way you're telling the truth. But you're glib enough to get away with the deception; you still prefer them now.

With diplomacy, there's more riding on these lies than 'keeping the peace'. Bargains, trades, and agreements are being made. I'd certainly be disinclined to treat with anyone that showed me a happy front, yet spoke about me disparagingly behind my back. More so when I'm relying on that person/business/agency to act in a way that supports me, as I would intend to support them.

it's frank talk, that can be said in the heat of the moment. with the modern world issues, these heated comments can happen often, and shouldn't be revealed for the sole purpose of keeping the peace.

I expected to see a WikiLeaks thread (actually a lot before this) but I'm a little surprised that one particular aspect of the whole fiasco hasn't been discussed here (at least not in the OP...I haven't read the whole thread).

The whole thing is a very convenient argument for those who want to regulate the internet. I've seen smaller stories popping up about the supposed need for regulation and attempts to do so (such as between Thanksgiving and Christmas the 'need' to shut down knockoff product sites for Christmas shopping). WikiLeaks makes this question of whether regulation can/should happen and unavoidable one. Where do you think this is ultimately heading in regards to internet freedom and is it a good thing?

Originally Posted by Foxee

Where do you think this is ultimately heading in regards to internet freedom and is it a good thing?

Not a good thing; in that other people could be mediating what I see, learn, know, experience.

If I want to read gay ninja erotica, then by god, I want to read gay ninja erotica (not saying I do, it's just an example). I don't want anyone telling me it's taboo.
I do understand that there's a need to be selective about certain things, such as the various murders you can find online (again, just an example, I don't want these). I have no problem with this being blocked.. but this brings out the question of what should be blocked and who gets to decide. Who am I to decide that naked midget wrestling (an example, please) is worthy of being banned.. some may think it's harmless, others may think it's worthy of damnation.

In all cases, it's the 'higher-ups' that are making choices for us. And while they may enjoy the occasional video of "scratch and sniff, animal butts" and let websites displaying them pass, they've got a vested interest in blocking other things... things that are of interest to other everyday people. When that blocking process gets extended to the freedom of information, especially where it's relevant to the people... I really get worried about what the governments are up to.

I've long since lost the belief that governments are there to serve us. Much the same way with the legal system and police practices.

If these few items have been leaked about selected incidents, then there must be a whole heap more out there. For the governments to continue to act as if they've done nothing wrong, and no one is stepping up to hold them accountable, then what chance do we (the little people) have regarding protecting our rights against them?