Edward Snowden endorsed Richard Stallman's warnings about proprietary software after Adobe Inc.'s new terms and conditions, which allow for user content review, sparked backlash from professional users.
Don’t be ridiculous. The US government is doing everything it can to convict Assange of treason and he is not even American. Manning denounced soldiers, and things were light on her because of the direct intervention of President Obama. Snowden denounced the National Security Agency, including actions directed directly by the presidency, there is no way to compare.
Assange has also worked directly on russian payroll (he had a program on RT) and has basically admitted that he supports russian imperialism (not in such an explicit manner, but we are all adults here). Not to mention he had no issues undermining the safety of whole multitude of people in his leaks as part of his quest for fame.
Snowden knew (or should have known) what he is signing up for. Collaborating with the russians (whose internal control of local internet services and jailing of people for social media posts makes the US look reasonable and human rights focused) is not right.
And even from a pragmatic standpoint; let’s say I believed all the stories about Snowden not having any other options (I speculate that he actually supports russian imperialism and their methods); why should anything he says be given any attention?
Tomorrow the russians might tell him that he needs to promote that Stallman is evil pedophile and Adobe are a great company. You’re saying he will suddenly reject their orders and refuse to execute them?
You don’t want compromised inviduals promoting your points; there are many other who have a measure of consistency in their beliefs and don’t back down (to a regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park) at the first sign of trouble.
If you don’t want to make such choices, then don’t get involved in activism. It’s very simple.
regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park
There isn’t such a thing as “good surveillance”, or “better surveillance”, if you do surveillance you can’t pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don’t chase people who say certain things online, it’s on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn’t “back down at the first sign of trouble”, what he did made him lose the life he had, I’d like to see you in his position.
I don’t care about the messenger, I care about the message, if it’s true, it doesn’t matter who’s saying it. If Putin says the sky is blue, it won’t turn green. Can Snowden have another intention when he talks about what Adobe is doing? Maybe, I personally doubt it. The point is: this is irrelevant. This does not change the core of what Adobe is doing in any way, nor does it make what it is saying a lie. Just as Stallman defending a member of Epstein’s list does not make false anything that he has said about big corporations, privacy and freedom.
While RMS does come off as provincial and somewhat delusional, he is a very smart and forward-looking fellow. I agree with his take on big corporation, privacy, freedom.
What I don’t agree with is promoting Snowden as a messenger for RMS’ viewpoints. You can’t have it both ways; he can’t be both forced to collaborate with the russians for his “survival” and be open in his statements. There are many other folks worth promoting who share RMS’ viewpoints.
There isn’t such a thing as “good surveillance”, or “better surveillance”, if you do surveillance you can’t pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don’t chase people who say certain things online, it’s on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn’t “back down at the first sign of trouble”, what he did made him lose the life he had, I’d like to see you in his position.
This is where you have a very primitive and parochial take. Getting sent to jail via kangaroo court for a relatively moderate social media post is far more damaging than the impact of western surveillance. If you don’t understand this you are lost.
He did back down at the first sign of trouble. He chose to work with the russian security services when things got rough. He had other choices, go back to the US, refuse to work with the russians and just let them know that he would prefer to keep quiet.
You seem to have a very “hollywood” interpretation of russian security services. Yes, they are brutal, but their propaganda/communication outreach is not some “star wars antagonist” type bullshit. They see value in Snowden, simply executing him or even sending him to jail would undermine this value for them.
Tankies are a no-go for me as I am Ukrainian. Even mainstream leftists, who generally have good ideas, like Yanis Varoufakis, turn into complete degenerates when it comes to NATO or Russian imperialism. And Varoufakis is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah… you may find yourself having a rough time here, buddy.
You may want to know that degenerate is a word in English often associated with fascists.
A wild appears!
Assange has also worked directly on russian payroll (he had a program on RT)
So has Chris Hedges, who’s always produced exemplary work. So what?
and has basically admitted that he supports russian imperialism
First of all there’s nothing really there to support, because Russia is hardly imperialist, despite the projection by imperial core states, think tanks, and corporate media to the contrary.
Around 20 years ago Russia—at the time lead by Putin—wanted to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected them. Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule. Since then Russia, rejected by the Global North, has had no choice but to join with the Global South as allies instead of neocolonizers. Hence BRICS+ and the larger developing multipolar bloc that’s going its own way, ignoring the US’ “rules-based international order” sanctions, developing its own international balance of payments outside of US dollar hegemony, and working to get out from under the boot of the IMF’s & World Bank’s debt traps.
the Russians (arguably one of the most brutal fucked regimes both currently and historically)
.
As for the US’ actions against post-Soviet Russia in particular:
The US has wanted to break up or otherwise weaken/isolate Russia ever since almost immediately after the break-up of the USSR. That’s why it’s been expanding NATO ever-closer to Russia despite originally having sworn up & down never to move one inch eastward. The US couldn’t allow a Ukrainian government to stand that was friendly with Russia. That’s why it couped Ukraine’s government in 2014.
.
The US doesn’t want Europe and Russia to develop closer ties, because it doesn’t want the “Eurasian landmass” to ever cohere, because then it would become too self-sufficient and powerful for the US to control. Zbigniew Brzezinski laid this theory out when the Soviet Union fell. That’s why the US tried to convince Europe not to build Nord Stream 2 and then later not to turn it on, why Biden said he would “bring an end to it” if Russia invaded, and why they ultimately did bring an end to it.
The US also very much wants regime change or balkanization in Russia so it can resume its neocolonial “shock therapy” plundering of it, which started under Yeltsin and ended under Putin. That’s why the US has a special hate-on for Putin.
And be executed for treason?
There is no reason to believe this would be the case, see Chelsea Manning.
Don’t be ridiculous. The US government is doing everything it can to convict Assange of treason and he is not even American. Manning denounced soldiers, and things were light on her because of the direct intervention of President Obama. Snowden denounced the National Security Agency, including actions directed directly by the presidency, there is no way to compare.
Assange has also worked directly on russian payroll (he had a program on RT) and has basically admitted that he supports russian imperialism (not in such an explicit manner, but we are all adults here). Not to mention he had no issues undermining the safety of whole multitude of people in his leaks as part of his quest for fame.
Snowden knew (or should have known) what he is signing up for. Collaborating with the russians (whose internal control of local internet services and jailing of people for social media posts makes the US look reasonable and human rights focused) is not right.
And even from a pragmatic standpoint; let’s say I believed all the stories about Snowden not having any other options (I speculate that he actually supports russian imperialism and their methods); why should anything he says be given any attention?
Tomorrow the russians might tell him that he needs to promote that Stallman is evil pedophile and Adobe are a great company. You’re saying he will suddenly reject their orders and refuse to execute them?
What is your logic here?
My logic is survival, you know, a human instinct. And nothing you said about Snowden makes his statement wrong.
Nah, your logic is virtue signalling.
You don’t want compromised inviduals promoting your points; there are many other who have a measure of consistency in their beliefs and don’t back down (to a regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park) at the first sign of trouble.
If you don’t want to make such choices, then don’t get involved in activism. It’s very simple.
There isn’t such a thing as “good surveillance”, or “better surveillance”, if you do surveillance you can’t pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don’t chase people who say certain things online, it’s on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn’t “back down at the first sign of trouble”, what he did made him lose the life he had, I’d like to see you in his position.
I don’t care about the messenger, I care about the message, if it’s true, it doesn’t matter who’s saying it. If Putin says the sky is blue, it won’t turn green. Can Snowden have another intention when he talks about what Adobe is doing? Maybe, I personally doubt it. The point is: this is irrelevant. This does not change the core of what Adobe is doing in any way, nor does it make what it is saying a lie. Just as Stallman defending a member of Epstein’s list does not make false anything that he has said about big corporations, privacy and freedom.
While RMS does come off as provincial and somewhat delusional, he is a very smart and forward-looking fellow. I agree with his take on big corporation, privacy, freedom.
What I don’t agree with is promoting Snowden as a messenger for RMS’ viewpoints. You can’t have it both ways; he can’t be both forced to collaborate with the russians for his “survival” and be open in his statements. There are many other folks worth promoting who share RMS’ viewpoints.
This is where you have a very primitive and parochial take. Getting sent to jail via kangaroo court for a relatively moderate social media post is far more damaging than the impact of western surveillance. If you don’t understand this you are lost.
He did back down at the first sign of trouble. He chose to work with the russian security services when things got rough. He had other choices, go back to the US, refuse to work with the russians and just let them know that he would prefer to keep quiet.
You seem to have a very “hollywood” interpretation of russian security services. Yes, they are brutal, but their propaganda/communication outreach is not some “star wars antagonist” type bullshit. They see value in Snowden, simply executing him or even sending him to jail would undermine this value for them.
Edit to add after the fact: https://lemmy.ml/post/16580444/11527133
Yeah… you may find yourself having a rough time here, buddy.
You may want to know that degenerate is a word in English often associated with fascists.
So has Chris Hedges, who’s always produced exemplary work. So what?
First of all there’s nothing really there to support, because Russia is hardly imperialist, despite the projection by imperial core states, think tanks, and corporate media to the contrary.
Around 20 years ago Russia—at the time lead by Putin—wanted to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected them. Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule. Since then Russia, rejected by the Global North, has had no choice but to join with the Global South as allies instead of neocolonizers. Hence BRICS+ and the larger developing multipolar bloc that’s going its own way, ignoring the US’ “rules-based international order” sanctions, developing its own international balance of payments outside of US dollar hegemony, and working to get out from under the boot of the IMF’s & World Bank’s debt traps.
You have got to be kidding me.
.
As for the US’ actions against post-Soviet Russia in particular:
The US has wanted to break up or otherwise weaken/isolate Russia ever since almost immediately after the break-up of the USSR. That’s why it’s been expanding NATO ever-closer to Russia despite originally having sworn up & down never to move one inch eastward. The US couldn’t allow a Ukrainian government to stand that was friendly with Russia. That’s why it couped Ukraine’s government in 2014.
.
The US doesn’t want Europe and Russia to develop closer ties, because it doesn’t want the “Eurasian landmass” to ever cohere, because then it would become too self-sufficient and powerful for the US to control. Zbigniew Brzezinski laid this theory out when the Soviet Union fell. That’s why the US tried to convince Europe not to build Nord Stream 2 and then later not to turn it on, why Biden said he would “bring an end to it” if Russia invaded, and why they ultimately did bring an end to it.
The US also very much wants regime change or balkanization in Russia so it can resume its neocolonial “shock therapy” plundering of it, which started under Yeltsin and ended under Putin. That’s why the US has a special hate-on for Putin.
Keep LARPing buddy!