Well, wait a second here. Tptacek seems to have been clear in saying that Assange being extradited from the UK itself is much more likely than being extradited from Sweden. Assange ended up being extradited from the UK itself.

Since he was forced out of the embassy into the arms of UK police, and never planned to go to Sweden, I don't think we'll ever know if he would have been extradited from Sweden (or on route to Sweden) or not.

Tptacek was making a point that's a bit more nuanced than you seem to give credit for. He hasn't been "proven wrong" by the UK allowing US to extradite Assange.

Also tptacek: "The fact that they won't render Polanski to the US cuts against Assange's argument."

Let's be real here, he never would have made it to Sweden. One way or another, Assange's fear that leaving the embassy would end in him in an American courtroom was neither irrational nor dishonest.

Here's the context for that comment, which isn't nearly as black/white as claimed;

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043068

Who is tptacek and why should we care what they have to say?

He is likely the most prolific commenter on this site: https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders

Ok. Why does that make their singular beliefs relevant? I'd expect the poster I was responding to to link news articles, politicians, political pundits, etc. to show it was a not a commonly held belief that he'd face such charges. Not some prolific poster on a niche tech forum.

I googled "assange paranoid 2012", and first hit was https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/nick-c...

Titled Definition of paranoia: supporters of Julian Assange. Feel free to read the text in the contest of today's news.

"More pertinently, Greenwald and the rest of Assange's supporters do not tell us how the Americans could prosecute the incontinent leaker. American democracy is guilty of many crimes and corruptions. But the First Amendment to the US constitution is the finest defence of freedom of speech yet written. The American Civil Liberties Union thinks it would be unconstitutional for a judge to punish Assange... From the 1970s, when the New York Times printed the Pentagon Papers, to today's accounts of secret prisons and the bugging of US citizens, the American courts "have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information". Maybe the authorities could prosecute Assange for alleged links with hackers. I don't know – unlike Assange, I cannot see the future. But why would they bother to imprison him when he is making such a good job of discrediting himself?"

To be clear, I wasn't arguing either way. I was just saying that a single poster on this site is not a way to get a feel for how common an opinion was back then. Your link is a much better start.

And for some reason having that opinion got my original post flagged and collapsed by default, even though I have a positive score...

I don't know why it was flagged but it could be mod intervention in regard to a discussion about tptacek.

As for the link, I mostly made a lazy search just to provide a link to "news articles, politicians, political pundits". If there was multiple people on HN claiming he was not going to get charged by the US then I would expect to see similar opinion outside HN. I thus tested the theory.

Well, presumably most people reading this think of this niche tech forum as their own community. And looking at the opinions of the most prolific members of that community is likely a good way to get an idea of the opinions held there in general

He's a prolific poster and as close as you can get to "celebrity" status on this website.

I have no idea why the poster above you is choosing to attack him specifically, though.

Yeah using a single "celebrity" on a niche online forum to prove it was not "commonly held he would face such charges" is very strange.