Author Topic: Wikileaks is broke (Read 4084 times)

sinis · « **on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 02:37:36 »

Wikileaks is about to stop their work. They can no longer publish than till the end of the year. Reason is the money, that is held back from so called service companies as Paypal, Visa, Master Card and other credit card companies.
Julian Assange stated in a press conference, that the amount of money, that is currently held back are several ten millions of dollars. He also says, that Wikileaks is currently busy fighting this "unlawful financial blockade".

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 30073[/ATTACH]

source:
Banking Blockade on wikileaks.org
wikileaks.de
german news with press conference

sinis · « **Reply #1 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 02:38:30 »

Here goes freedom of press once again in a so called democratic country.

Lanx · « **Reply #2 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 03:27:49 »

wikileaks is dumb, they should be promoting bitcoin and say... see this is what corporations can do to you once they control money like paypal/mc/visa, but bitcoin is a free market.

hashbaz · « **Reply #3 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 03:45:14 »

Freedom of the press is not being violated here. The corporations that are blocking funding to Wikileaks are acting on their own. If it is illegal, they should be sued and forced to allow the money through. If it's not, Wikileaks should die or move to some other funding method.

insilica · « **Reply #4 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 03:50:15 »

Quote from: hashbaz;440368

Freedom of the press is not being violated here. The corporations that are blocking funding to Wikileaks are acting on their own. If it is illegal, they should be sued and forced to allow the money through. If it's not, Wikileaks should die or move to some other funding method.

"The corporations that are blocking funding to Wikileaks are acting on their own."

Lol! and I bet no one is leaning on them hey.... I would say this is a very poor and naive statement. Remember "Your either with us or against us" -- the same applies to the press unfortunately! The only democracy and freedoms offered to us in the west is sex, more sex, alcohol, tv and more sex! and some other stuff which we probably take for granted hence I can't remember of the top of my head.

hashbaz · « **Reply #5 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 03:56:25 »

Quote from: insilica;440369

"The corporations that are blocking funding to Wikileaks are acting on their own."

Lol! and I bet no one is leaning on them hey.... I would say this is a very poor and naive statement. Remember "Your either with us or against us" -- the same applies to the press unfortunately! The only democracy and freedoms offered to us in the west is sex, more sex, alcohol, tv and more sex!

You're saying the US government told them to do it? Possible, sure, but is there any evidence that that is the case?

insilica · « **Reply #6 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 04:05:36 »

Quote from: hashbaz;440371

You're saying the US government told them to do it? Possible, sure, but is there any evidence that that is the case?

I'm not saying anything... I just find it difficult to believe that all these corps took unilateral action! to me it's a coordinated action and achieved what it set out to do. it shut them down. it called into question the founders reputation. it has less and less media coverage.

The trouble is without such organisations, governments and mercenaries run havoc in countries they have no business being in to start with, i.e. chiefly IRAQ.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #7 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 06:58:49 »

Lolwut? Web hosting costs like $6/month.

Oqsy · « **Reply #8 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 07:04:49 »

I'm calling bull****. How can posting documents cost tens of millions of dollars? This guy's methods are more arcane than the US Govt if he's that inefficient. It's taken more effort for him to write and release these announcements than it would to release the docs he's sitting on. He's manipulating you if he has you believing that he needs "tens of millions" in funds to post documents.

He wants more money, man. He's gotta feed the monkey. Hasn't that occurred to you, man?

Oqsy · « **Reply #9 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 07:05:36 »

Ninja'd by the red furry

itlnstln · « **Reply #10 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 07:11:00 »

You have to pay your employees. You have to pay your sources. Getting the kind of information they post isn't cheap.

In terms of web hosting, with companies refusing Wikileaks payment sources, I'm sure web hosting companies aren't taking their business either. Now, they have to tack on server, T1/T3, electricity, security, etc. costs, too. They aren't running their grandma's recipe website off of Geocities here.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #11 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 07:23:27 »

Still, it makes no sense that they couldn't scale back enough to stop posting new stuff but keep the site "as is" up and running. In fact, I bet you could find some uber liberal host who'd do it for free.

Lanx · « **Reply #12 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 09:57:13 »

there have been writers and editors that have splintered off/quit wikileaks cuz off how it was ran, i forgot the exact reasons but something to like it's run inefficiently and run horribly as well, however you cannot discount that wikileaks gets a lot of traffic and that costs money.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #13 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 10:35:22 »

So then make it subscription-based or something. There's all kinds of ways to decrease bandwidth.

itlnstln · « **Reply #14 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 10:44:59 »

I think more of their problem has to do with paying employees and for information than web traffic.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #15 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 11:42:57 »

Then, like I said, scale back. Like when Filco scaled back by dropping EK.

Malphas · « **Reply #16 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 15:41:12 »

Quote from: Oqsy;440394

I'm calling bull****. How can posting documents cost tens of millions of dollars? This guy's methods are more arcane than the US Govt if he's that inefficient. It's taken more effort for him to write and release these announcements than it would to release the docs he's sitting on. He's manipulating you if he has you believing that he needs "tens of millions" in funds to post documents.

He wants more money, man. He's gotta feed the monkey. Hasn't that occurred to you, man?

I'd be inclined to agree with you, if what you just said was actually the case, and Assange claimed that was the figure needed to host the site. Why not try reading the OP again?

Quote from: sinis;440348

Julian Assange stated in a press conference, that the amount of money, that is currently held back are several ten millions of dollars

thebilgerat · « **Reply #17 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 15:49:55 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;440484

So then make it subscription-based or something. There's all kinds of ways to decrease bandwidth.

Umm... if no one will handle the transactions, how does this work, exactly?

keyboardlover · « **Reply #18 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 15:54:34 »

What transactions?

Wikileak's "transactions" (if you're talking about software transactions) are obviously automated.

thebilgerat · « **Reply #19 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 15:57:37 »

the money people will pay for their subscriptions. Maybe they should hand deliver currency to wherever the hell wikileaks is located?

flyball · « **Reply #20 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 15:59:07 »

Quote from: thebilgerat;440702

the money people will pay for their subscriptions. Maybe they should hand deliver currency to wherever the hell wikileaks is located?

[video=youtube;bjZRAvsZf1g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjZRAvsZf1g[/video]

keyboardlover · « **Reply #21 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 16:07:16 »

Quote from: thebilgerat;440702

the money people will pay for their subscriptions. Maybe they should hand deliver currency to wherever the hell wikileaks is located?

Wikileaks doesn't charge money now, why would they charge money with a subscription-based system?

Like I said, it would only be for curbing bandwidth. This way you could have much more control over a user's session and how much bandwidth they're using.

flyball · « **Reply #22 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 16:14:42 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;440707

Wikileaks doesn't charge money now, why would they charge money with a subscription-based system?

Like I said, it would only be for curbing bandwidth. This way you could have much more control over a user's session and how much bandwidth they're using.

read the first post in the thread. they are unable to accept money.

Oqsy · « **Reply #23 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 16:17:51 »

Quote from: Malphas;440692

I'd be inclined to agree with you, if what you just said was actually the case, and Assange claimed that was the figure needed to host the site. Why not try reading the OP again?

I comprehend just fine on the first read. What is implied is that the reason for the shut down IS the held up funds. Perhaps you missed that step in the logic dance. It's ok, we're coming to the chorus now, ready... DANCE!

keyboardlover · « **Reply #24 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 16:19:32 »

So - are those donations then?

I've browsed wikileaks before...didn't cost a thing.

The whole thing doesn't make much sense to me...

flyball · « **Reply #25 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 16:25:28 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;440712

So - are those donations then?

I've browsed wikileaks before...didn't cost a thing.

The whole thing doesn't make much sense to me...

the site is run by donations. they are unable to accept money via payment processors.

thebilgerat · « **Reply #26 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 16:36:20 »

Ok, step back from wikileaks for a second and assume that you were running a business, say, in the US. Your business is in the habit of doing something that pisses other people off, or not, doesn't matter. One day, you are unable to process any visa or mastercard purchases at all, and paypal won't give up your money. You have not been charged with any crime, you just are "opted-out" of the financial system by your bank. OK, you think, I'll just wander down the street to another bank and move your account over. No can do, they say. you're SOL.

Legal? Ethical? A bank should do two things. pay you interest on the money you deposit and charge you interest on the money you borrow.

Oqsy · « **Reply #27 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 16:40:07 »

Agreed. Paypal is not a bank. Part of the problem right there. Paypal can get away with anything. It's the reason I boycott them.

Daniel Beaver · « **Reply #28 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 17:06:35 »

Quote from: thebilgerat;440718

Ok, step back from wikileaks for a second and assume that you were running a business, say, in the US. Your business is in the habit of doing something that pisses other people off, or not, doesn't matter. One day, you are unable to process any visa or mastercard purchases at all, and paypal won't give up your money. You have not been charged with any crime, you just are "opted-out" of the financial system by your bank. OK, you think, I'll just wander down the street to another bank and move your account over. No can do, they say. you're SOL.

Legal? Ethical? A bank should do two things. pay you interest on the money you deposit and charge you interest on the money you borrow.

That's the angle that worries me the most. There are a lot of good reasons to dislike wikileaks, but that distracts from the real issue: that financial institutions can effectively embargo and destroy an organization who's politics they don't like.

Malphas · « **Reply #29 on:** Thu, 27 October 2011, 19:37:21 »

Quote from: Oqsy;440711

I comprehend just fine on the first read. What is implied is that the reason for the shut down IS the held up funds. Perhaps you missed that step in the logic dance. It's ok, we're coming to the chorus now, ready... DANCE!

The reason for the shut down is presumably because all forms of funding have been shut off, and the fact the amount of cash being held up is in the tens of millions (which to be fair, I can easily believe would be BS) is incidental to that, whilst highlighting the supposed scale of the situation. It wasn't implicitly implied anywhere that the site actually required tens of millions to stay afloat. But yes, I apologise for mistaking your somewhat tenuous assumptions as you having simply misread the post.

News:

Author Topic: Wikileaks is broke (Read 4084 times)