'it seems equally true that Wikileaks haven't really told us anything big we didn't already know, or at least suspect' I disagree on this and they aren't done yet. So you don't know what is next. Besides, why would you shut something down that isn't a real threat(yet)?
As for the rest of it, we've been hearing that Wikileaks are not done yet for a long time. If they are genuinely interested in transparency rather than raising their profile and/or causing extended embarrassment to people they don't like, then why haven't they just published everything on their web site for all to see? Transparency theatre is becoming as tedious (and unconstructive) as security theatre, and it's time for Wikileaks to s@#t or get off the pot.
I think Wikileaks is hoping that over time, the repetitive anger at them becomes boring, whilst the corruption they uncover becomes the more interesting part of the story.
I suspect they are deliberately releasing only mildly embarrassing information at first as a form of innoculation so that when they get to the really damaging stuff Wikileaks itself will be old news and people will focus on the more unpleasant truths.
I appreciate that you probably hadn't seen it when you wrote the parent post, but it appears that the big Wikileaks story for today is a list of facilities that are considered critical to US security.
I'm not sure I see any corruption exposed, or any other public interest for that matter, in publishing such information openly. How can this possibly do anything except make it easier for the bad guys to cause significant damage?
If they carry on in this direction, releasing ever more sensitive information that really might have national security implications, then I can only see any public support they have deteriorating and the arguments of governments that some information must be kept secret for national security reasons being strengthened.
The end result will probably be a terrible disappointment for conspiracy theorists, reassurance to many people that most of our governments are not in fact secretly planning world domination and merely make mistakes from time to time, and a new era of locking down anything that might be considered even remotely sensitive within governments to the extent that we might even see changes in the laws that currently protect whistle-blowing that is genuinely in the public interest.
It would be an ironic, and unwelcome, legacy for Wikileaks if its big campaign ultimately resulted in more people believing in arbitrary government secrecy and tighter controls on free speech just in case anyone else as irresponsible comes along in future.
> Amazon should be made aware of the scale of public opposition to what they’ve done.
> If we reach at least 1,000 people, then We will each mail Amazon letting them know why we won't be buying from them anymore.
> 1%, 989 people to go
If that's not irony, I don't know what is.
In any case, I don't see the objection here. A lot of Internet warriors seem to be almost zealous in their support of Wikileaks and their belief that the various large-scale releases they have made recently are somehow changing the nature of society and making governments fundamentally more transparent.
Wikileaks are quick to say that governments have not identified specific people hurt or killed because of the leaks. However, looking at things from a slightly more neutral point of view, it seems equally true that Wikileaks haven't really told us anything big we didn't already know, or at least suspect. They have created a lot of hype, disruption and embarrassment, but where's the huge smoking gun? I'm in the UK, and so far there has been commentary on our politicians as with many other places, but there's no evidence that our government ordered a hit on Dr David Kelly, or that Tony Blair had more information than we already knew from the public inquiries about whether Iraq really had WMDs, or that our then-government's support for the US action against a lot of popular opinion was a result of some corrupt deal for personal gain by the politicians calling the shots. Frankly, the leaks have so far been rather anti-climactic.
Also, just as an aside, the whole "we offered to let the government help us vet the material" argument is just transparent politics. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of documents. To even try to vet that data in any useful depth, the time needed from security-cleared and fully informed officials, and the amount of taxpayers' money it would cost would be staggering. Please don't tell me Wikileaks weren't well aware of that. And that's without even getting into the "we don't negotiate with enemies" ethics.
Given this sort of mess, I don't blame Amazon for not wanting any part of it. The fact that Wikileaks and various embarrassed government officials are having a very public pissing match is not a reason for independent businesses to start taking sides. More pragmatically, given the aforementioned lack of any real substance in the leaks, it is highly likely that the governments are going to win this one, and no business on the scale of Amazon wants to be out of favour with major national governments. There just isn't anything in it for them.