Post 4: Wherein A Silly Picture Compares Assange To Zuckerburg

Samuel and Simon here.

We came across this little gem on our news feeds this evening, and we have to say it touches on a few topics where both of us are at odds with, we would guess, all of you. Let’s start with Assange.

We have never understood why Julian Assange is so universally lauded by the denizens of the internet. We understand that everyone likes freedom of information, but we thought that it was generally accepted that there is some information that you can’t safely make public; what important ambassadors think about other important ambassadors, for example, is probably past the line of what it’s safe to put in public domain. Let’s start with the premise. Julian Assange gives private information on corporations to the public. For free. Is this why he’s called a villain? We would say no. Julian Assange is not known - for good or for ill - for his releasing corporate information, Assange has made a name for himself releasing classified information on governments. Is everything currently classified deserving of that status? Probably not, and legitimate efforts have been taken by the Obama administration themselves to make public thousands of documents previously kept secret. But there is an appropriate kind of information to release, and a responsible way to do so - a way that must take into account not only the opinions of those who compiled the information, but those for whom its release would most affect. This sort of release can only be done by those who actually manage international relations; you cannot know what information must be secret if you don’t have access to the top levels of military and diplomatic intelligence. And the release of this information doesn’t seem to have done any demonstrable good. Large-scale leaking of diplomatic cables does pose serious threats to national security and the ability of governments to successfully conduct business with each other. We see no positive effects of Assagne’s actions. Only negative ones. Mike Mullen summarized it well when he said "Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point. Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."

The belief that information should be free in all cases to all people is a tremendously misguided one. Assange has blood on his hands over the arrogant principle that everyone in the world is entitled to know the intimate details of every government. This is not so. We have politicians for a reason. To get his information to WikiLeads, Private Bradley Manning skipped over the entire chain of command, not to mention the Department of Defense, on a judgment call about what the public needed to know. This is not a way for an organization to be run, least of all one as reliant on hierarchy and structure as the United States military.

Finally, there needs to be a conversation about motives. Time and again, Assange’s supporters will ignore the potential consequences of his actions to tell us his goals are pure - power to the people, ending government monopolies on information, etc. Assuming this goal is noble - a proposition we feel has been at least somewhat thoroughly rebutted, is it true of Assange? We’ve all heard about his arrest last year and subsequent trials for rape charges. The truth of these allegations have been disputed, though, it must be said, not very effectively, but, in an unquestionable act of selfish behavior, Assange threatened to release further information unless the charges were dropped. Prosecute the man, and watch as court and government officials are embarrassed with classified information, one after next. The immorality of blackmail aside, how well does this go with Assange’s purported freedom of information policy? If his top priority is that information should not be withheld from the public, why is he withholding some? To be used as leverage? In case he ever needs to beat the courts? These are not the actions of an altruistic hero, nor of a man worthy of our lionization.

And now for Mark Zuckerburg. The objection to Zuckerburg here seems to be that he should not have been named Time Person of the Year because he takes information that people volunteer on Facebook and he sells it to marketing agencies. These agencies then use this information to cater their advertisements to your interests. First, the premise that this should keep him from being named Person of the Year is a simple misunderstanding of what the honor means; the Person of the Year is not and never has been given to the individual who has done the most good. It is for the person, object, or idea that "for better or for worse...has done the most to influence the events of the year." When he joined this list, Zuckerburg joined such illustrious figures as Hitler (1938), Stalin (1939, 1942), and Khrushchev (1957). So we’re not too worried that he’s tarnishing the good names of past Person of the Year winners.

But we also strongly object to the idea that corporations selling volunteered information is immoral. Let’s remember that Zuckerburg isn’t violating your privacy to extract personal information about you. He’s not following you around your house with a camcorder. If you want to say things on Facebook, that’s your choice, and you absolutely have to expect that the company has access to it. We couldn’t care less whether or not Facebook told its users that it was doing this; obviously they’re taking advantage of the information you tell them to better market to you. It’s such a petty thing to get outraged about, and such an easy thing to work around. If you don’t want people to know things about you, don’t say them on Facebook. It’s really quite simple.

We would like to close with a passionate concession. Private Bradley Manning’s actions were the result of a genuine desire to do good, and he has now been imprisoned in solitary confinement for over a year facing charges that could land him in prison for 52 years. It’s hard to support a system that still locks someone up at 75 because they stole documents at the age of 23. Entire lives are lived in 52 years, but not from behind prison bars. We not saying that we should free Bradley Manning. But we are saying that what we’re doing right now is pretty damn insane.

ASIDE: We realize that a kind of in-depth analysis of an image made mainly to amuse might seem a little pedantic, but this kind of cheap parallelism, a sacrifice of accuracy or truth for the sake of a pithy line (and remember this is Simon and Samuel saying so), is all too prevalent on the internet and is always tremendously frustrating. Just because something sounds good does not mean it is allowed to be wrong. So if we seem to be belaboring the point, or responding to a straw man argument, it’s because that is the quality of argument that was presented to us. If you don’t want to read rebuttals packed with sophistry, don’t construct intentionally misguided arguments.

Anyhow, thanks for reading. Please drop us a comment to tell us why information about tactical strikes against terrorists must be free for everyone to know but information about where you like to eat is a vitally important secret. Stay cool, and keep on trucking.