The case of Wikileaks screwing up with transparency by blurring the frequency in the aftermath of America’s elections and other comments about tech scene in 2016.
Wikileaks helped us to get quite an insight at the internal politics of the DNC by giving access to the secret garden party of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 elections, what we are all very grateful for (THANK YOU GUYS!). Yet, I might say that after Trump’s election, they kind of behaved erratically.
In fact, Wikileaks, sealed with the seal of conspiracy, promptly started to elementary my dear Catson behave as any mainstream stakeholder shaking hands with whoever like the barons of the privacy (Snowwden out of Assange’s body) to the over consumed media product Michael Moore! Only are missing Good Amy (God, Amy!) and Go Go Klein! to get the portrayal completed (but oups they’re women so skip it).
More seriously, it is dubious that the organization we fight at labelling did try to cover its political ambitions under some kind of christian moral rhetorics – (we are the champions, yeah), look my cat is jailed in the
London, oups ecuadorian ambassy and Pamela Anderson brings me my lunch box – knowing that they precedently in exclusivity advocated body and soul against the demons of partisanry and the hell of conflicts of interests.
BUT to my dismay, they argued that a media source reaching a kind of public interest should necessarily convert into a political influencer deciding into the place of people of who is going to govern the nation and raising dubious and demagogic arguments of pseudo-counterpower into new media in such a perfectly polished hispterized brand (The Intercept? Catch that one). Oh my godness.
Anyway, one thing is sure in ontology and politics, transparency and privacy are not going the same way.
2016 has been a disruptive year with the Brexit referendum that split the UK from Europe, the Revelations on the links between the DNC and Wall Street, the mainstream media and the political gotham as influential leaders and well seen academics, the chief of the FBI last minute request to access the Clinton’s documents and the raising of popular crowds that put, against all expectations, Trump at the head of the White House.
Yes, the last months have been a pochette surprise instead of the craft packet waited to be delivered monthly (liberal shit kids say).
But when you think about these moves, despite that they happened out of the blue in a certain poetical chaos, weren’t they, in a way, the quite logical prefiguration of some secret forces coming from underwater currents that started to erode the political scene. Nothing was much new but yet, it was made public, and the simulacrum was suddenly known from all.
That is carnavalesque!
Many networks of power appearing as stables have been seriously impacted by unexpected moves, starting with the markets of New York, Tokyo, Mexico or London that were down on the night of the elections. Damn. They should have asked the hackers, the main and only source having sides both in Russia and America… (Call it diplomacy).
Following Trump’s election, we thus observed a reconfiguration of global powers starting with negociations on global governance to the reactivation of the Old War fantasma that predicts that US and Russia are soon to exchange bacteriological war, with the emergence of China as a serious challenger (yes Obama, they’re better than you at human exploitation, you bet), and the appearance of secondary economies on the scene of economical power, passing by the discredit of long term american media figures like the NYT, Washington Post, CNN or AP. Yes. The world has changed its face in a night.
Yet, other actors revealed the one they were hiding in secrecy (and we’d better not know). Quite dominant yet non established actors, the whistle blowers and the alternative tech scene, have thus seemingly, in the realm of the elections, voiced loudly their concerns to get out of the shadow where they lyed since years like Succubs (my precious) to access political power and public recognition. Yes, they revealed how badly they wanted to be adored.
If the wish of accessing political leadership might be understandable yet ironical from part of actors that have been saying their commitment to the passing of public pieces of information for the last decade, we might ask if the legitimacy of these sources in accessing political power is not merely an attempt to get honor and fame by getting people to do what they want. Doesn’t this sound a bit like, WAIT, a communist/fascist dictature?!! Oh yes…, Fidel Castro is a hero… true. He maintained his seat for nearly 5 decades and he would have completed 6 if he hadn’t abused from cigars.
Thinking about it, it’s not like if the NYT, the Washington Post, the HuffPost and Friends (there are many but they don’t do much) supposed to watch and comment about the political power but don’t do it quite yet, being themselves watched by the political consortium, the tech leaders (Silicon Valley hype, Conversation.com, Medium, Snapchat, Google, Facebook, Twitter, yes Twitter) and the White house have merged to become one single party. This CANNOT happen because IT IS SIN!
Since ever, it is not for nothing that we have splitted political power and public affairs from news rooms and news sources as it is quite obvious of what political power would cause if money was in charge with the Press and the Media in terms of political propaganda, looking back at the monarchies in Old Europe (Louis XIII, R.I.P).
Taking into consideration what happened with Snowden when he got access to economical power, political recognition and popular power (yes it is irritating) and became that hegemonic figure managing his business interests (he is also known for settling the Startup culture with
TOR Signal), we came to a really confusing situation where the proper guy that was supposed to guarantee our civic liberties turned himself into a reseller for an app (i.e. Security for the poors) that incidently exposes its users to breaches and targeted surveillance. Well you can fix it if you happen to have a friend who is a hacker though (but I have been said it is hard to find).
Hell yeah i’m talking about accountability and reputation. Of course, we don’t want the same thing to happen to Wikileaks because we need hope. We need to believe that a change is possible. For once. Yes. Well. That was the positive moment. Even if I wouldn’t give my caution if the dark web is good or bad, we have to be vigilant that we are maybe, in this period of post-crazy idiot yet successful elected Trump with a risk of concentration of the power – our power – into the hands of ex-political opponents. They are for sure in a position for taking control over both informational networks and political power, which is BAD THING.
And why Wikileaks wouldn’t be at more risk at the times they’re looking for digging their foundations into stones with more funds and resources and starting to spread media propaganda. Because since the 9th of November, it is clear that they have refocused on a political/financial agenda rather than keeping it informational.
Ok tell me, do you really think these guys are still going to care about transparency right now? What they’re doing is following a personal interest agenda.
Even if leaders have been maintaining connections with political and economical power at all times, I just think this move was really too short to be true, which is just totally undermining alternative actors as Wikileaks credibility because they’re doing exactly what they have denounced about Hillary and on the same night : colluding in the name of democracy.
The corruption of the original text – transparency – has damaged Wikileaks integrity. It had been shown that Wikileaks have exposed non public figures privacy in their leaks when they had apparently the material means not to do so. Why? Some observe that Wikileaks is more creating an illusion of transparency than transparency.
What is going to be different from precedently?
Stakeholders are like the agents Smith. They take every forms that can convey them to more wealth. And they don’t care about you until you can drive them where they want. The informational cultures are being used as Trojans.
In this context, we might ask, thoroughly and responsibly…, if it is not better that Wikileaks remains independent from this opaque affiliation of powers to guarantee the existence of a counter- power serving the needs of society for transparency and information because it is crucial for our future to obtain a redistribution of powers. Because if opponents become victorious, then there are not anymore opponents at all (which is great if leaders have integrity and we know they don’t so the situation is pretty fucked).
It is not the only leaks that put the Democrats and establishment upside down but the fact that Hillary loss was secreetly wanted by the Senate, and the Congress, and the majority of voters, and at some point, the Russian, and the entire World, and this doesn’t have to see with the fact that Hillary is a woman but with the fact that Hillary is a Clinton.
In other words, Wikileaks is compromising itself and losing its status as a news source by shaking hands with opaque powers, occupying the space just as an écran de fumée or a public entertainor to distract people from the real thing, just as Snowden has done in the past, being a blockbuster. Wikileaks has not ruined the DNC politics. Wikileaks is ruining the politics for emancipation and it is quite obvious now that the only reason is access to economical power. Nothing new folks.
This case is a lesson for the future.
We need to rethink the frontiers of transparency to allow more people to engage in a broader scientific debate.
Obscurity obtained by blurring the frequency is what makes people ignorant and what makes people ignorant is what gives power to the global order to control information and minds.
Licence Creative Commons
Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.