Isn't this akin to blaming Snowden/Manning for diplomatic fallout instead of blaming those who were engaging in the wrongful practices that led to the fallout.
I see three parts. Engaging in gay relationships, the hackers releasing data, and the people who do the stoning.
In the Manning/Snowden case, there are also three parts.
The US doing bad things, Manning/Snowden releasing it, and other governments reacting.
Now, in the Snowden/Manning case, media tries to place blame for 3 on 2 instead of 1, when blame should be placed on 1.
In this case, people seem to be placing blame for 3 on 2, when blame should be placed on 3 (unless you fully believe that gay relationships should end in death, in which case it should be placed on 1, but few people on HN believe that).
So there is a slight difference in that the blame should rest on the initial actor in the Snowden/Manning case while in this case the blame should be on the reacting actor (the ones killing people). But I think it is very similar in trying to blame the data release instead of the responsible party.
Needless to say, the plain-bellied Sneetches don't think much of being rounded up, so they hide. A few star-bellied Sneetches sympathize with the plight of the plain-bellied Sneetches, and help them hide.
Your neighbor is such a Sneetch, but is not careful enough, and you find out that there are a half-dozen plain-bellied Sneetches hiding in her basement.
Fortunately, when the trucks come around at midnight, it's not your fault just because you've told everybody you know. It's the fault of those damn star-bellied Sneetches.
I'm not sure where this leaves Snowden and Manning. I would probably argue that they exposed a greater evil than might have been perpetrated as a result of their disclosures.
Impact Team, though -- snitchy Sneetches, all of them.
Is it any less their fault if they find out via the National Sneetch Agency than if you tell them? I wouldn't think so.
So is it any your fault? Is blame like a pie such that if someone has 100% of it, everyone else must have 0%? Or is it limitless, where two people can be 100% to blame?
As you said, if we do think snitches are to blame, it does leave Snowden and Manning to be blamed. Maybe it is worth it, but they are still to blame.
What does change is who else might be responsible, and who among them bears blame. Your neighbor is responsible, but not to blame -- she intended to help the plain-bellies hide, but made a mistake. You would bear both responsibility and blame, as your disclosures led to the plain-bellies being whisked away, you can be expected to have know that would be the likely result, and you didn't have a good reason to do it anyway.
Snowden and Manning would also bear responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Blame? I don't know. I tend to doubt it. Even though they should have expected that there would be bad fallout, I do believe they had a good reason to move ahead.
Impact Team? I'm not sure what justifies putting a man in jeopardy of his life, but personally, I (edit: do not) think that outing millions of (by-and-large unsuccessful) adulterers rises to the occasion.
It reminds me that we should be careful with security, and also honest about what we can and can't do. Ashley Madison promised emails would _never_ be exposed - a promise they were either not willing or not able to keep.
Then I could be accused of being a dishonest immoral monster when my hookups discovered I wasn't really married.
Also: there's a neat parallel to the NSA here, in that a substantial portion of the users registered for A.M. probably haven't been unfaithful, and are getting "dragnetted" up with the people who have, because who's going to take the time to sort that out?