> I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse.

That is because e.g. Snowden is actually a whistleblower, warning the people against the powers that be, and Haugen is an activist pushing for an agenda which aligns with what the powers that be want, making her a useful political pawn.

Snowden is an activist pushing for an agenda too. Sure, one we agree with and seems ethical but it's still an agenda. Side note, when did "activist" become a dirty word?

When their political opinions are opposite to mine

When it became so vague that one does not have to really do anything to call themselves an 'activist'.

Yes pretty much this. It's transparent and laughable.

> Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended, whereas others have been prosecuted in the absence of intended harm

What exactly does this have to do with the topic? Your first paragraphs are talking about treatment of whistleblowers and Hillary Clinton is (obviously) not a whistleblower.

Adding in a Clinton dig just adds political derailment to the topic for no particular reason.

He's anticipating the objection re Snowden. You have to be angry about the fact that the information he released makes the govt look bad, and not just the fact of improper process, a la Clinton. Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth.

> Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth

This is a very easy argument to make without resorting to political derailment, especially since it's basically a founding principle of our country (separation of powers, because we can't trust governing entities to police themselves, therefore competing and opposed government entities must effectively 'police' each other).

Sure, but

1. a lot of people also find that entire situation to be such incredible bullshit

2. the counterargument discredits itself when it employs the mental gymnastics needed to explain that inconsistency

> 1. a lot of people also find that entire situation to be such incredible bullshit

OK? The fact that government doesn't police itself sucks, yes. The fact that I don't have a Lamborghini also sucks. I don't see what throwing in a Hillary Clinton dig is going to do to solve this situation or offer any kind of insight to other readers and commenters besides making people feel angry about politics.

> 2. the counterargument discredits itself when it employs the mental gymnastics needed to explain that inconsistency

I don't even know what you're referring to right now or how it relates to the topic.

You honestly sound like you're going out of your way to be upset about this.

Do you realize that I am advocating for Assange, who exposed the Bush administration. Why is it only a political dig if it's aimed at Clinton?

Yes, your post is otherwise advocating for whistleblowers, which is on topic and makes sense to discuss.

Clinton's email server is not a whistleblower. Clinton is not a whistleblower. The FBI is not a whistleblower. Your sentence "according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended" does not relate to whistleblowers in any way. What is does do is signal a political flag to other individuals. This sort of political signalling does not contribute to the conversation about whistleblowers and ultimately is not productive.

Yes and I also clarified that this is about optics. Anyway, since you are challenging the reference - I shall explain it. It is a bit complex and hinges on a few pieces of information and reasoning:

1) The whistleblowers I am advocating in favor of - Assange, Manning and Snowden, are being prosecuted because the US government is ensuring that there is justice served to those who would dare to expose their secrets to the public. The secrets have already been leaked. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle, so as such the persecution of these individuals is punitive, and to serve as a warning to others who would dare to do something like this in the future.

2) Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information. The FBI said that she did not do this intentionally (I am inclined to agree with the FBI here btw). HOWEVER, there is magically no interest in setting an example here, or being punitive, or serving any kind of warning to others who would dare to make a mistake like this. Director James Comey said that any reasonable person in her position would have known that this was wrong.

The US government wants to make an example out of Assange and Snowden when they leak classified information, but not of Hillary Clinton because she didn't intend to do any harm. As such, Assange (who is not even a US citizen) and Snowden leaked this information in the interest of the public exposing the apparent misdeeds of the US government. From an optics point of view, the moral of the story appears to be that if you are Hillary Clinton's housekeeper, you get to print out classified material for her convenience, but if you are a concerned citizen, you don't get to learn about the fact that your government collects your internet correspondence en-masse.

3) I quote from:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11136

in which Neera Tanden writes to John Podesta:

> I know this email thing isn't on the level. I'm fully aware of that. But her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem (more so than honesty).

And also:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

In which Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik tips off Hillary Clinton's campaign manager about what the Department of Justice will be doing in the next couple of days, so that the campaign can get their communication ready in advance.

We see here that there is widespread agreement, even amongst allies, that some wrongdoing has been done, and we see the government's machinery springing into action to help this person out.

---

Perhaps you are a wealthy or fortunate person who sees things from a different perspective, but I am an ordinary person living in a third world country where government corruption regardless of party is the norm. I see a powerful person getting off easy and getting help from people inside t he government to clear their name. I also see good people who risked their lives and their families being persecuted by the most powerful government in the world, and all they did was help ordinary people like me understand what our governments are doing to us. Mr. Snowden has to live in Russia and may never get to go home again. Mr. Assange has lived in captivity for years. Mr. Clinton can give a speech in a single day and make $200,000 while his wife is in government. Maybe for you this is not shady at all, but for ordinary people like me, this is just emblematic of corruption and a broken system where government protects its own. The optics are terrible.

You're honestly comparing apples and oranges here. One side (whistleblowers) is a case where someone actively published and drew attention to classified material.

The other one is someone who was careless with classified material due to laziness and either A) not caring about the ramifications of that or B) not knowing.

I'm not defending Clinton, she's icky for many other reasons (not the least of which is her insincerity and power fixation), but your comparison is a non-sequitur.

Not caring about the ramifications is pretty much what the whistleblowers are being persecuted for though. They drew attention to classified materials for the public good, not to aid the enemies of the US government by leaking some specific tactical information that helps in battle.

Because some nut, clutching their gun, waking up from a nightmare screaming "Hilary!" is a meme at this point. Bringing it up out of nowhere seems to mark tribal membership more than anything else. If it was just the first thing that came to mind then you should probably know (so I will tell you) that 'the emails' have become something of a loaded topic, what with getting mostly used as a rallying cry these days.

Exactly. OP clearly has an agenda (though all over the map in their comments). Clinton has no relation to this whatsoever. Maybe too much consuming of right wing media.

Just so I understand your claim:

My agenda is that I am advocating for the rights of Julian Assange - who exposed various embarassing government secrets for the Bush administration...

.. and simultaneously my agenda is also that I am advocating against Hillary Clinton, the political opponent of George W Bush?

Our local Indian news channel NDTV (which leans left) released a story in 2016 about Hillary Clinton asking her housekeeper Marina Santos to print out classified information. The US Government has no problem with this. I don't think that the housekeeper having access to classified information is in the public's best interests. I do think that the releases made by Assange and Snowden are in the public interest. But the US government has a problem with this.

This is the double standard that I am highlighting - the US government (regardless of who is running it) is demonstrably and fairly consistently at odds with what is in the best interests of the public when it comes to privacy, social media, etc. etc.

You're leaving out that even though she asked her housekeeper to print out classified information (so you say, I'm not familiar with the story, but I'll take your word on it for this), she wasn't actively trying to undermine US security. She's just careless and ignorant of the ramifications of her actions.

I'm not defending Clinton or Assange. I think they should both be facing some sort of punishment for their actions. Neither is a saint.

Assange has a martyr complex that he's milking for support. Clinton is a megalomaniac that will say anything to get into power.

Neither are good people.

I am not a professional and I have not met any of them, so I cannot diagnose them with complexes.

Actively trying to undermine US security is a misattributed intent. You can easily assume good intentions for Snowden and Assange, just like good intentions are assumed for Clinton.

This is not done because Clinton is a member of the Washington DC establishment, who is well networked, and is well protected by people in the system.

> On the popularity of Haugen: I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse.

Well one of them leaked documents of said government, the other company secrets.

On one hand are whistleblowers to the American public against the U.S. government. On the other hand, a whistleblower to the American public and U.S. government. Not sure why one would expect them to be received similarly.

Would the judiciary (branch of government) consider Haugen to be in violation of any NDAs that she had with Facebook?

In general, leaking a company's secrets is going to be a civil matter, and to the extent that it's a criminal case a prosecutor would be very unlikely to press charges if the company isn't asking them to. On the other hand leaking classified government secrets is always a criminal matter and charges are almost always going to be pressed.

Yes, but my point here largely rests on the literal definition of the word "whistleblower" itself and how the use of that word, and who uses that word, impacts how issues are framed.

The US Government has, in a seemingly bipartisan fashion, pre-emptively branded Haugen a whistleblower. They've used the word before any debate over whether or not this is a whistleblower, has taken place. This person is assumed to be acting for the public good.

Manning, Snowden and Assange were not afforded that presumption. Instead they are first presumed to be guilty of revealing state secrets. They are not presumed to be acting for the public good.

Presumption of innocence for those who serve the government's interests. Presumption of guilt for those who expose the government's wrongdoings.

>The optics are absolutely terrible on these issues. If I can speak for some of the folks in the rest of the world, we're laughing and shaking our heads.

I can't think of a large government that doesn't protect its interests and those of the elite above others. In my experience people tend to have a blind spot for how their own government functions versus other governments.

This makes sense if your analysis is of bureaucrats and the administrative state. But it doesn't explain why individual, elected representatives wouldn't be unable to express a respect for the release of true-yet-damning information.

Why do you assume the politicians or their parties didn't already know most of what is going even if unofficially? Politicians are around for a while usually and political parties stick around even longer. They also often want to ensure they get a nice cushy post-retirement gig somewhere. Damning yourself is generally not a good move.

My government is far worse, but it doesn't grandstand in public hearings the way the US Congress does.

Haugen is making a point which is distinct from "government control over social media".

Her point is that FB is knowingly algorithmically delivering content that makes them a profit by creating "engagement", through amplifying whatever riles people up, which is known to include hate, violence, and untrue conspiracies. It it not a neutral public message board.

For better or worse, there are different prescribed legal procedures with their own protections for whistleblowing that involves classified information. You're supposed to leak that to Congressional oversight committees with security clearances, not the press. There is an obvious weakness here if you don't trust Congress itself, but that is still the law.

As for Clinton, the issue there as I understand it isn't so much "intended harm." There are simply different consequences for intentional versus unintentional data spills.

How smug. Do you actually think that your government, whatever that is, would just welcome someone who rightly divulged government secrets?

I cannot trust the media anymore, they are crazy and they are making me go crazy.