IF anything hosting him that long would seem to make them NOT a puppet government.

But the moment they've had enough they're a "puppet government" to some people?

The ecuadorian government changed during this time. They hosted him for 7 years, which for 6 of those years there was a different president called Correa who granted Assange the asylum and supported him. After 6 years, a different president was elected called Lenin Moreno, who is pro-US and was willing to trade Assange in order to obtain loans for Ecuador and possibly some corruption along the way. Also, Assange did publish documents that Moreno is corrupt, with accounts with millions of dollars in off-shore Carribean banks.

> possibly some corruption along the way.

This is the first time I’ve heard this accusation. Do you have any basis for this claim?

Ecuador isn't a single entity. Coincidentally, they've had enough after the government changed? For a slightly unbelievable reason which they've never released any evidence for? And now this low blow?

I feel like this is a conspiracy theory type territory where before Ecuador was a brave independent nation, but the moment they do something someone doesn't like they're a puppet, not a single entity, and every event possible is pointed to be part of the conspiracy theory, even handling of personal items....

Look it up, with the last president, Correa, Ecuador was significantly backing away from the West and being more friendly with China and Russia, but this new president is pro-West. A month after they trade Assange, somehow Ecuador secures a 6 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, while previously no one bat an eye. The current regime is definitely a puppet government

Are you saying Ecuador was a puppet of China and Russia?

Look at my comment again. I said "more friendly with Russia and China". That does not imply that I said that Ecuador was previously a puppet of China and Russia, simply that it was more friendly with them than they were the West.

I'm pointing out how easily it is to say "they're a puppet of" when a nation is close to a given nation and does something you don't like.

I'll agree reading between the lines and conspiracy theories are related; you shouldn't necessarily believe everything you're told. The difference is, I'm willing to change my mind to the simplest explanation with some evidence (conspiracy theories don't usually do that).

But also, a reminder: Conspiracy theories have gotten a terrible name recently via all the batshit insane ones. Some of them turned out to be true.

>where before Ecuador was a brave independent nation, but the moment they do something someone doesn't like they're a puppet

It's also the previous president who gave assange asylum saying this: https://twitter.com/mashirafael/status/1116386840502775809

Stealing documents and releasing them to the public irresponsibly does not make you a journalist.

Wikileaks has an impeccable record. They’ve never had to retract a story. They’re also doing a duty to the public in uncovering government and corporate secrets, exactly what a journalist should be doing.

Wikileaks never published stories. They've focused on some elements of the data they had in order to spread the message about the entire dataset they had.

What's wrong with that approach is that everyone else got his/her private communications released publicly even if they didn't do anything wrong in particular. They were in a now-public database that exposed dirt on someone else, as a collateral damage. Wikileaks hoped that people would find more dirt from looking at the entire datasets, but what we got instead was conspiracy theories (like Pizzagate).

This is the opposite of the Panama/Paradise Papers approach, that only publishes the incriminating parts of the dataset, while guarding everyone else who happened to be a part of the same database.

I agree with the goal of Wikileaks, but not their approach.

I don't think their record is exactly perfect. They release plenty of information that is damaging to individuals. From Wikipedia:

> WikiLeaks has, for instance, revealed Social Security numbers, medical information, credit card numbers and details of suicide attempts.

I can't imagine most of this information is necessary in "uncovering government and corporate secrets" and quite irresponsible of Wikileaks.

Pants are shirts! Assange participated in the Seth Rich conspiracy, intimating that Rich had possibly been one of the DNC sources. There’s an obvious difference between never issuing a retraction and never needing to.

Topologically, assless chaps are shirts ∴ ∎

> They’ve never had to retract a story.

That is actually not a good sign. Anyone with a sufficiently long track record is going to make some mistakes because no one is perfect. If you refuse to issue any retractions or updates, what that really means is that you refuse to admit that you make mistakes.

If by impeccable you mean they have released a ton of forged documents without any attempt to verify their veracity, you would be correct.

Journalists don't simply parrot their sources, they use discretion in determining what is appropriate to release.

Which documents have been refuted? As far as I know, none...

Out of the DNC document dump? At least a quarter were confirmed to be outright forgeries (with fingerprints implicating Russia), and of the remainder almost all had at least some changes from the originals.

There was also the documents related to the DNC aide who was murdered, all of which were demonstrated to be forgeries.

And that's just the US political stuff...

Some people 'believe' that they were forged. a few lacked signatures. A couple were dated after the hackers were apparently 'kicked out' of the servers. But nothing had been proven.

Have you read the special counsel’s GRU indictment?

But they failed to bring one story: the emails of the GOP. What they did with the hacked emails from the Democrats is disgusting. Even if they are still not under the influence of Russia, they let the GOP/Russia use them as a vehicle to influence that election. And now it bites them in the ass, as if nobody could foresee that Trump would go after Assange after all.

Stealing documents is still a crime. That is the crime he's being accused of. (Being an accessory to it, to be precise.)

Publishing a bunch of documents does you get does not make you accessory to theft. Helping steal them does.

Hopefully in the 21st century, we can be a bit more nuanced than just "stealing is bad, mkay". The intent must be factored in, and maybe the result.

Also, not necessarily saying he's a journalist, but there's a reason journalist have special protections in many countries. Exposing corruption or the failings of powerful people is always risky, and I'm glad some people decide to do it.

There's a difference in publishing classified content (which is what journalists do) and actually stealing that content (which is what whistleblowers usually do). AFAIK Assange did not steal anything but only published what he got.

He supposedly gave Manning technical help to steal data, which is not the same as merely publishing it.

Manning was one of the best IT people in the whole military sector where he was based at. Wikileaks giving Manning technical help how to steal data is ludicrous... Manning first approached a hacker friend of his regarding the data that he already had, and that hacker friend of his told him to go to Wikileaks. After Wikileaks published the stuff, the hacker friend (diagnosed as Autist with loads of mental health problems) told the police that Manning stole the data

Adrian Lamo [1]. Not sure why its relevant to mention that he has an autism diagnosis.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo

How to burn a DVD/CD?

or, use the Lady Gaga CD case?

Allegedly how to get access to another user's creds, to avoid having to download further data Uber Manning's account.

Except he did not steal them.

Assange might be a number of things, but he’s not a journalist.

Your definition of journalism is a bit distorted given the current journalism environment as an example. The current scene is that all journalists have editors who comply with their editors and the editor's backers (institutions or private organizations, CEOs, Managers, Lobbyists, Political Parties, financiers). These editors are playing the politics game, not the journalist game. Initially Wikileaks was actually mediating whisteblowers and big publishers, but big news organizations werent publishing what they were sending them because it didnt work with their narrative. The military docs that Wikileaks published were first sent to New York Times, however, NYT didnt want to publish the files at all, they werent even excited by them.

My definition is not distorted. I’m abiding by the standard.

If you want to redefine what makes a journalist, then we have to have another discussion.

Edited: Sorry. Also have a serious problem with the accusation that editors on whole are compromised. They’re some of the most hard-nosed people I know—To a fault—And to my professional annoyance...

Based on whose definition? Is a journalism degree a requirement? If you define it solely in economic terms, then a part-time stringer for Reuters isn't a journalist because, after all, they're not "professional" journalists. Wasn't this the argument made in Myanmar when it incarcerated the two Reuters 'journalists'? Freelance journalists are not journalists? Or do you want to go down the path of having government license journalists? Then there's no doubt. Some countries do this already. The writers who contributed to Ariana Huffington's blog but didn't share in the payday when she sold it? Were they journalists? The DoJ reached the conclusion that there was no principled distinction between the NYTimes and Wikileaks. Trump's DoJ reached a different conclusion. The UK has already recognized Assange as a journalist. He may be a new media journalist, he may be a crusading journalist, he may be an unpopular journalist, but he is a journalist by any reasonable definition: he gathers news and publishes it.

Based on his professional behaviour he’s as much a journalist as the writers for the National Enquirer. That is, he has a penchant for selectively burying information when it suits him.

Everyone is a journalist nowadays because everyone has social media, a blog, a photo camera, and other means to release content made through observation(s).

However, there's a distinction between journalist and professional journalist. He worked with professional journalists at various points in his life, that's for sure.