Large datasets missing off wikileaks.org for weeks

[Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many]

On 11/20/22, Douglas Lucas <dal at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> Regarding the first article, I have no way of knowing why it says
>> that, but my understanding is that it is common for targeted groups to
>> both have agents placed in them to redirect internal activities, and
>> to also be misrepresented publicly.
>
> So your theory is that if an individual or group has opponents, then
> they're off the hook should a credible accusation show up, because maybe
> the accusation isn't actually credible. Since all individuals and groups
> have opponents, they're all off scot free now, innocent of any credible
> accusation.

I don't mean to argue with you. I like you. The things you are saying
here seem somewhat over the top to me. The article of course has
value, nor is anyone off scot free.

> There is a way of knowing why the article says that. It's an ancient
> technique called "reading."
>
> I think bottom line, cypherpunks believes Assadnge can delete any leak,
> kick any source in the head, and assist any dictator, and it's justified
> becuase [insert fanboy bullshit here].

It is completely unacceptable to delete a leak.

I'm actually similarly upset with other things like what you describe
(like when greg did not re-add everybody after everybody was removed
from the list) -- (or when I gave sharp political stimulation to
cecilia when she was asking for help before she died) -- these
behaviors are _severely harmful_.

> I'm ashamed to have wasted so much time on this list today. I'm
> de-subscribing. Jack off to narcissists deleting leaks and climbing the
> ladder by stepping on the heads of their sources yourselves.

I'm not doing this, Douglas, I'm a troll here. I'm saying we need to
_recover the leaks_. What is important is _recovering the leaks_. If
that means sueing WL or somesuch to do so, that's an avenue.