Go to https://wikileaks.org and enter a keyword into the search bar.

Conversations for android is an example of a good XMPP client.

Yea, nah…

The protocol is worse for privacy

‘Trust me bro’

The problem is, you’re comparing apples with orchards. Analogous would be: ‘email is worse for privacy than yahoomail’. Plus in this scenario yahoomail only lets you send emails to yahoomail addresses.

Phone numbers are no longer required iirc

Phone numbers are still required to register and maintain an account. Only difference now is you can choose to hide it from other users and give people a ‘username’ to look you up with instead.

Matrix and XMPP are not alternatives and are worse for privacy and security

XMPP is exactly as good or bad for privacy as the servers and clients you choose. It’s a protocol, not a service. Unlike Signal, which is a brand/app/service package.

Ok, so where is the collusion with a foreign power in the Manning publications? Tell me, which charges did they drop that alleged espionage, rather than talking to a source and publishing information?

Again, Assange pleaded guilty to journalism. Your Espionage Act criminalises encouraging sources and publishing info about war crimes.

Russia is now doing the same thing to a US journalist for the WSJ, accusing him of being a spy.

Someone hasn’t read the plea deal…

You do realise that his source, Manning, is American. It’s the Manning leaks he was prosecuted for. There is no mention of collusion with any country in the indictment or plea.

Assange pleaded guilty to journalism. You should change your Espionage Act so that talking to a source like journalists do all the time doesn’t land people in prison. Tyvm, the world.

While we’re at it, free Dan Duggan, imprisoned on behalf of the US with no local charges, awaiting extradition accused of something that isn’t even a crime here.

I have to correct you there. The full unredacted cables are still online on various sites. Including cryptome. They have been online this entire time. Yes, no-one was harmed, but not because they put the cat back in the bag (you can’t). Once other sites had published it, WikiLeaks republished the full trove as a risk-mitigation measure so that the compromised names could quickly make themselves aware that their name was out there. WL also contacted the State Department to try and warn them of the risk. There is footage of this.

The US spent tons of money trying to find anyone who’d been harmed by Manning’s leaks but found no-one.

WikiLeaks had been drip-feeding big stories based on the cables. The compromise of the encryption key to the full unredacted archive by Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian put a stop to this unfortunately. They stupidly published the encryption key in their book. Once people found the encrypted file online it didn’t take long to put 2 and 2 together.

Thank you. This made my day! 😂😂😂

RT was one of many broadcasters the show was licensed to. Including Youtube.

It was produded independently.

Wikipedia is not proof. The sources it links, CNN and Reuters, are not proof.

Calling me names doesn’t make you right.

Ever heard of licensing?

The WikiLeaks statement said RT, an English-language network launched by the Kremlin in 2010, obtained a license to broadcast the show but was not involved in the production process or the editorial decision-making, which was overseen by Assange.

Quoted from: https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/julian-assanges-tv-show-gets-launch-date/news-story/3db33f96811bf274505ac3ce65c8a469

https://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/about.html

Fact: there was only ever one rape allegation and it was brought by the cops. The alleged victim refused to sign the statement to police and never signed a version which was edited later. All names were then leaked illegally to the tabloid press before JA was questioned. Read Prof Nils Melzer’s well-researched book.

Actually, he’s always denied having worked with Russia, and I’m sure there’s no proof for it, so you’ll have to come up with something better than that.

This is the best explanation of the case in full context I’ve seen.

I’m gutted. Devastated.

The abc is not biased at all in this, no. They’re not the ones he leaked to.

You make it sound like he accidentally leaked evidence of war crimes. He leaked evidence of war crimes comitted by generals as well as boots on the ground but somehow the abc’s top ‘investigative reporters’ ie gov’t stenographers are still missing that.

…is like something you’d expect from a dictatorship. Are we the bad guys, actually?