Wikileaks going broke after funding frozen again

The end may be near for Wikileaks, after a number of credit card companies have put a halt on donations from supporters to the non-profit organization.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
IllusionRSN2427d ago

Gee, I didn't see that coming. You can't expect to release that kind of information and not expect repercussions.

Speed-Racer2427d ago

He was an arrogant man as well and treated some of his staff like crap. Can't see them lasting too long.

zerocrossing2426d ago (Edited 2426d ago )

Yeah. Though it is funny how those who point out the ills of others, often get labelled as criminals themselves.

Is he really a bad guy? or is labelling him as one detrimental to his character, thus making him and his website "Wikileaks" less credible?.

Sobari2427d ago

U.S. government is so butthurt.

Noctis Aftermath2426d ago

With how corrupt US politicians have become it was pretty obvious that this would happen, can't go bad mouthing the US banks, they line the pockets of pretty much every person sitting in congress.

US banks hold way too much power, any president that gets elected just becomes their pawn.

cheetorb2427d ago

Freedumb of speech, just watch what you say bitch!

Der_Fuhrer2427d ago (Edited 2427d ago )

Why are so many people against wikileaks? Do you have a problem with having an open government that shouldn't keep certain secrets from it's citizens, the same ones that voted the politicians into office in the first place? If so, make sure next year you don't vote for Ron Paul ;)

Wikileaks didn't do anything against Western Union, PayPal, how the hell do those companies have to right to BAN DONATIONS to that website?...and why do they care in the first place? It's a perfect example of major companies/corporations that are MAJOR lobbyists in politics protecting whoever has their "best interests" ($$$) at heart. It's just sad that people are happy that this website is going broke, especially when it's practically FORCED to go broke.

Talk about a classic case of "One hand washes the other hand".....

Speed-Racer2427d ago

A good point indeed. Our society is no where near perfect. While we hope that our government officials are looking out for our best interests, content will ALWAYS be covered up for what they deem as the best interest to the public. Also given the amount of hidden corruption where gov't officials benefit, they definitely would protect US financial based firms from such information exposure.

Another point to note is this. Let's say Osama Bin Laden was caught alive, and the military wanted to extract info from him, it's very unlikely that he would give up information in a court room basis, so they may turn to torture to get it out of him. The information could be vital in stopping a terrorist attack against a city, but on the flip side it would mean exposing the US government as hypocrites for conducting torture practices. It depends on how people want to look at it and they take a greater good approach when it comes to those things. I guess the bureaucracy also forces them to do unethical things in the name of trying to get something done quickly.

In short, a site like Wikileaks would put dents in their plans.

Der_Fuhrer2427d ago (Edited 2427d ago )

Well I know Barack Obama opposed torture and even PROMISED to shut down Guantanamo Bay before the last election.

Then, what I believe happened, is: He gets elected, and has numerous sources at the CIA, NSA, and others clue him in on how our "torture" practices actually benefit our countrys safety in general. So he makes the decision to continue all of that...because his number 1 job as President is to keep us safe.

Then, Fox News calls him out as a hypocrite for changing his stance on that issue, and most people just say "oh it's just those crazy Republicans talking trash on him" and pay little attention to it...when in reality, Fox News is technically right. (Not that him switching points of view is a necessarily a bad thing)

To be honest, I don't know where I stand on that issue, because I understand that that's only done to protect us. But as for the practices of many of our politicians...I'm very skeptical of how many of them actually have OUR best interests at heart.

Lord_Sloth2426d ago

They have the right to provide or deny their service as they see fit. It's their FREEDOM of choice.

Also, some secrets I neither want to know nor do I have any business knowing. I'm not in the military so military affairs should be just that.

Tommykrem2426d ago (Edited 2426d ago )

I'm not against WikiLeaks, but I'm certainly critical to a lot of what they've done. First of all Wikileaks can be very tabloid.

While they do shed light on secrets that shouldn't be secret a lot of they're announcements have been attention seeking that might do more harm than good. For instance - the ambassadeur cables - US ambassadeurs talking crap about other countries, because they were giving their exact, unadulterated opinion of other countries's governments back to their superiors. The superiors need this honest feedback, and if the ambassadeurs have to start sweet-talking to their own government because they're afraid of being exposed, the government could get the wrong idea.

Free flow of information is one thing. That doesn't mean you have the right to know what Obama thinks of Sarkozy. That is a private matter. His political agenda is a public matter. Sometimes exposure can lead to situations being handled with less honesty, less trust and, ironically, less openness. So while I think WikiLeaks is important and that they're doing a lot of important work, they should steer away from being every hacker's tabloid pbublisher, and carefuly choose news that people need to know about, not just the gossip they want to hear about.

Der_Fuhrer2421d ago (Edited 2421d ago )

The attention they get comes from the media, not them. The media scours through the released info and publicizes the most scandalous/juicy info they find.

Tommykrem2421d ago

Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with getting attention to important matters per se. Even though announcing announcements and tweeting "who can be trusted and who can't" without reasoning, is incredibly tabloid, and is part of Wikileaks own agenda.

My point was simply that there are matters, that even with free flow of information doesn't need to see the light of day. Individuals are entitled to privacy, and even public figures are individuals. And yes, I'm against government secrecy, but of course there are matters that can't be publicly released for obvious reasons, and Wikileaks have interfered upon that privacy several times, the ambassadeur cables standing as one of the better examples of that.

So basically: WikiLeaks - Good, but keep it down.

Show all comments (19)