The press wants to be the SOLE "Decider" of what the people get to see.
That's right. The writer and editor decide what get's published - it's what they do. No source would ever talk to a reporter if they knew everything they said or wrote would be published. WIRED is a private institution. It owns the information for which it invests heavily to acquire. If you don't like it, don't read WIRED and boycott their advertisers, or hit the street and do your own f'ing reporting.
If you want to complain, complain about how the comment is not supported by the article. In it, Wired or its staff utterly fail to take a stance on Assange's actions at all...
Who says Wired needs to have a stance on the matter at all? This might be before your time, but journalism used to be about telling a story, not selling an opinion.
Yes, because as a fan a sane reaction to a report is arranging a flyover and aerial photography of the site involved... really it is, please keep telling yourself that.
Perfectly sane if you are a financial analyst or trading/holding a bunch of AAPL and want to get the scoop on the next product offering... or if you are a real estate agent trying to get some publicity.
How is this better than a web-based news source, even a paywalled one?
When you download the app flip to page 3. You'll see...
Humans are the weakest link. Humans want to exploit dominate and win against other humans. That goes double for the ones that already have obtained power and control.
Apparently Skynet is still in its angry teen years. We are safe for now...
It's easier to control companies. Just don't purchase their services.
Good lord. RTFM before you start spreading delusions of consumer power. Perfect Competition is more of a theory than an existing market structure -- which, btw, don't exist without significant regulation (e.g. stock or commodities markets).
Overall, not worth the money...
What did you expect for 5 bucks?
But no android app.
But, does it run on Linux?
You are assuming that average american actually likes what the American government is doing. If anything, wikileaks has shown how the government itself is putting national security, diplomatic relations and its citizens at risk just to benefit the military industrial and oil industry faction.
Not everyone in public is a stubborn moron like you, who refuses to appreciate being shown the truth.
Get off your soap box, Guardian Reader. Nowhere in my post, did I express my personal opinion. I was pointing out the flawed assumption that most Amazon customers would support Wiki-leaks actions.
Except for Chicago, which is leagues above the rest of us.
Ken Livingston would beg to differ.
Considering how the public opinion is always favored towards the underdog and the whistle-blower, it is seriously debatable whether Amazon would take this kind of risky decision by themselves. Any business would rather weather the few DDOS attacks for a few days and grin and bear the loss, instead of being seen as an "evil company". Instead, it is definitely the American government twisting their arm.
You're right. American consumers love nothing more than a foreigner posting classified information that puts national security, diplomatic relations, and civilian and military personnel at risk while making us all look like @ssholes. Your POV != public opinion. Right or wrong, I'm not sure Amazon will alienate more consumers than it gains from this move.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
