next »

[OneMoreGo]

Here's a documentary on wikileaks for anyone not sure who they are or what they stand for. http://svtplay.se/v/2264028/wikirebels_the_documentary  - warning contains some grisly war scenes in the second half 

I like some of the ideas here, the tower defense ones particularly appeal since i already have a ready made engine for that.  I'd be tempted to make a DDOS themed game personally.

[Jonas Kyratzes]

Really there should be more political games in general. And I don't mean political in a shallow right/left dichotomy way. There is something bigger going on here; Wikileaks, Adbusters, Anonymous and even the Pirate Bay are the infancy of a new movement in Western politics. The battle is no longer about traditional wedge issues, its no longer about which politicians we elect. Its about who controls the flow of information, its about the internet generation vs. the old powers and the status-quo. The institutions of Western society (our churches, banks, schools, communities, and governments) have lost our trust, perhaps our only hope lies in the anarchy that a free internet represents.

Both Gnome and I are socialists, but Wikileaks is also getting support from Ron Paul - not exactly on the same side of the political spectrum as we are! There are many reasons to support Wikileaks, as long as you believe in democracy and freedom of speech.

I'm thinking of creating a contest in the New Year for "Transgressive Games". Games that are raw, subversive, ugly, irreverent. As J.G Ballard said "I want to rub the human face in its own vomit and force it to look in the mirror."

Anyone else interested in a contest/collective around that theme?

Definitely. I'm all for games that push the envelope.

[Kuppo]

Anyone else interested in a contest/collective around that theme?

I have so many ideas for this, it gives me nightmares.

It disappoints me to see people thinking wikileaks is a negative thing. It also surprises me to see some of you being okay with others having this opinion.  This isn't something where it doesn't matter whether or not you support it.  This isn't a question of wearing open toed shoes or not, this is a question of whether or not we want to be conscious of the corruption and deceit that is inherently rampant in our current socio-economic system.  Wikileaks helps fight against bourgeois propaganda and censorship.  It is not okay to be against such a movement.  Yes, it is that simple, if you do not support wikileaks, you are wrong.

That said, I feel it important to emphasize that Julian Assange is not some dear leader sent down from the heavens to guide us into revolution, in fact he is a free marketeer.

Okay I think I'm done now.

[Dacke]

Kuppo, I agree that you "have" to generally support what Wikileaks do. But I'm okay with people thinking that Wikileaks should be more selective in what they release. I don't agree with that opinion, but I can understand it.

[Soulliard]

Kuppo, I agree that you "have" to generally support what Wikileaks do. But I'm okay with people thinking that Wikileaks should be more selective in what they release.

This is basically my view. Obviously, I approve of Wikileaks revealing widespread corruption in governments. However, it is an oversimplification to consider any organization either wholly positive or negative, without any room for gray.

There isn't much evidence of corruption in the leaked diplomatic cables. The worst example of corruption is probably spying on foreign diplomats. But everyone already knows the US has spies, so this really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. If that is the worst example of corruption in all the leaked cables, that's not too bad, really. If anything, this is evidence that the American government has been fairly honest.

Since there's not much corruption going on, I fail to see any great benefit to releasing the cables. On the other hand, there's a large potential for harm in releasing the cables. It hurts diplomacy when the leaders of other nations know what America really thinks of them. If other nations are taking aggressive actions (say, Pakistan is behaving aggressively towards India), they may be less willing to listen to US appeals for peace. And releasing sensitive security information could put a number of individuals at risk.

Obviously, I believe in the right to free speech. But that right comes with a responsibility not to use it in ways that cause harm. You don't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you don't spread lies to discredit another, and you don't give criminals a business's security credentials. Wikileaks should stick to releasing information about dishonesty and corruption in governments, instead of releasing sensitive diplomatic information that puts lives at risk.


(apologies for turning this into a political discussion, but the thread was going in that direction already).

[Kuppo]

There isn't much evidence of corruption in the leaked diplomatic cables. The worst example of corruption is probably spying on foreign diplomats. But everyone already knows the US has spies, so this really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. If that is the worst example of corruption in all the leaked cables, that's not too bad, really. If anything, this is evidence that the American government has been fairly honest.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/08-5
http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan
Okay, now I'm done.

[Jonas Kyratzes]

Kuppo, I agree that you "have" to generally support what Wikileaks do. But I'm okay with people thinking that Wikileaks should be more selective in what they release.

This is basically my view. Obviously, I approve of Wikileaks revealing widespread corruption in governments. However, it is an oversimplification to consider any organization either wholly positive or negative, without any room for gray.

There isn't much evidence of corruption in the leaked diplomatic cables. The worst example of corruption is probably spying on foreign diplomats. But everyone already knows the US has spies, so this really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. If that is the worst example of corruption in all the leaked cables, that's not too bad, really. If anything, this is evidence that the American government has been fairly honest.

Since there's not much corruption going on, I fail to see any great benefit to releasing the cables. On the other hand, there's a large potential for harm in releasing the cables. It hurts diplomacy when the leaders of other nations know what America really thinks of them. If other nations are taking aggressive actions (say, Pakistan is behaving aggressively towards India), they may be less willing to listen to US appeals for peace. And releasing sensitive security information could put a number of individuals at risk.

Obviously, I believe in the right to free speech. But that right comes with a responsibility not to use it in ways that cause harm. You don't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you don't spread lies to discredit another, and you don't give criminals a business's security credentials. Wikileaks should stick to releasing information about dishonesty and corruption in governments, instead of releasing sensitive diplomatic information that puts lives at risk.


(apologies for turning this into a political discussion, but the thread was going in that direction already).

To keep this short: the leaks reveal massive corruption and illegality, including war crimes (and spying on United Nations diplomats is not a small thing, either). And there is no evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by a leak, other than hypocritical politicians. Not a single person has been harmed, but a lot of crimes have been exposed.

But if we want to go into the politics of this, let's start a new thread.

Anyway, Gnome and I are currently working on a website for the project. It should be up in a few days.

[Quicksand-T]

Glad to hear people are interested in the Transgressive Games idea. I'll work on launching that soon, probably in January.

Not to derail further, but I don't understand how American tax money funding child sex slaves is not a bigger scandal/story. This is why making games, or any art, based on Wikileaks is a good idea; because the important information in the leaks has been mostly buried under discussion of Assange and the Wikileaks organization itself.

Anyway, Gnome and I are currently working on a website for the project. It should be up in a few days.

Need any help with anything?

[Soulliard]

The DynCo scandal in Afghanistan was also worth bringing to light. There were certainly a handful of documents that were worth revealing. I don't have a problem with releasing them.

I take issue with the thousands of released documents that do not contain any valuable information. What is the benefit of releasing a document that says Dmitry Medvedev "plays Robin to Putin's Batman"? All that does is make it more difficult to engage in diplomacy with Russia.

Releasing a vast majority of the documents was not anti-corruption, but anti-diplomacy. This is unfortunate for any advocate of peace, because if diplomacy fails, the only other way to influence another country is through war.

And what is the benefit of releasing documents listing sites that could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks? (source)

There is no evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by a leak, other than hypocritical politicians. Not a single person has been harmed, but a lot of crimes have been exposed.

How can you say that with any certainty? You have no idea what effects the leaks are having on world leaders. And there is still plenty of time for the effects of the leaks to be felt.

I hope you are right, and that no one will be harmed by the release of the documents. But it would still have been an irresponsible risk for Wikileaks to take.

But if we want to go into the politics of this, let's start a new thread.

I don't care to make a big discussion out of this. I just felt the need to clarify my views when people are making statements like this about me, just for suggesting that people research the organization before blindly supporting it:

It is not okay to be against such a movement.  Yes, it is that simple, if you do not support wikileaks, you are wrong.

This whole "with us or against us" mentality doesn't benefit anyone.

[Kuppo]

This whole "with us or against us" mentality doesn't benefit anyone.

*cough* except for the working class *cough*
Okay, promise, I'm done now.

Anyway, I've started on my game for this, and if I may say so, it is coming together nicely.

[Dacke]

It definitely does not. It's surely better to encourage people to join your cause, rather than declaring war on them. The revolutionary left does more damage (per capita) to left and to socialism, than any other movement I can think of.

[Zaphos]

Wikileaks Stories is, of course, not the framework for an anti-Wikileaks game

Why not?  The original pitch just sounded like a call to make games based off the stories that have been leaked ... that should include stories that show both positive and negative effects of the leaks, I think.

[Jonas Kyratzes]

Need any help with anything?

We're keeping it simple for now, an account at Wordpress with a paid domain name. Not because we don't know how to do more than that, but because our funds are limited and this will basically be an information hub. But thank you for the implicit offer of help! I'm sure various other ways of helping will pop up as we go along, and we'll be glad to help you.

Why not?  The original pitch just sounded like a call to make games based off the stories that have been leaked ... that should include stories that show both positive and negative effects of the leaks, I think.

...because even according to the State Department, not a single individual has been affected by the leaks?

[Zaphos]

Hmm, really, no one affected whatsoever?  I would think at least there are longterm positive diplomatic goals that are hindered by the leaks, or at least an argument to that effect could be explored.

[increpare]

Why not?  The original pitch just sounded like a call to make games based off the stories that have been leaked ... that should include stories that show both positive and negative effects of the leaks, I think.

...because even according to the State Department, not a single individual has been affected by the leaks?

The US state department is shuffling around diplomats the world over.  They have said publicly that it will take years to rebuild trust.  Nobody's been murdered, but one could make a game about how someone might be, on the basis of some things already leaked, or a game about a scenario in which leaking of information would be extremely detrimental.

[Jonas Kyratzes]

The US state department is shuffling around diplomats the world over.  They have said publicly that it will take years to rebuild trust.  Nobody's been murdered, but one could make a game about how someone might be, on the basis of some things already leaked, or a game about a scenario in which leaking of information would be extremely detrimental.

Yes, but why will it take years to rebuild trust? Doesn't that say something about the content of the cables? A criminal may have trouble rebuilding social contact with the people he harmed, but that doesn't make the crime irrelevant.

Furthermore, yes, it is perfectly legit to make such a game (freedom of speech, after all), but one should also consider the actual facts (no-one has been killed, even according to people who wish it were different), and how making such a game plays into the propaganda of the state and certain sections of the media.

The "terror scenarios" have not actually occured. Child abuse, murder, corruption and spying did.

[Soulliard]

Yes, but why will it take years to rebuild trust? Doesn't that say something about the content of the cables? A criminal may have trouble rebuilding social contact with the people he harmed, but that doesn't make the crime irrelevant.

Criticizing Medvedev wasn't a crime. That's just an honest assessment. Listing places vulnerable to terrorists isn't a crime. That's just the kind of security procedure that I'd hope the government would be engaging in.

That doesn't mean the information should be made public. Not to keep it out of the hands of the people, but to keep it out of the hands of the Russian government, or terrorists, respectively. Because they can use that information to cause harm.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it seems like you have blinders on. You seem unwilling to recognize that information has the capacity to cause harm. I mean, nearly every action is going to cause some amount of harm. Even life-saving surgery is going to cause some harm. The question is whether the amount of good it brings is worth the cost.

Now, if you want to say that the good caused by the leak of the diplomatic cables outweighs the bad, I can respect that. I may not agree, but I can certainly respect that. But to completely deny the possibility that the leak could have any negative effects... That's just not realistic.

Furthermore, yes, it is perfectly legit to make such a game (freedom of speech, after all), but one should also consider the actual facts, and how making such a game plays into the propaganda of the state and certain sections of the media.

Heh. This is exactly the argument I used that started this discussion.  

[gimymblert]

@Soulliard
But at the end where do you draw the line? If you discriminate information, that's put you in the same position you are denouncing if you are wikileak.
There is no win case here, the only way of doing is full or none.

[Nate Kling]

I'm planning on trying to do a game for this.  Hopefully I will find time soon, I can't wait to see what people come up with.

[Jonas Kyratzes]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it seems like you have blinders on. You seem unwilling to recognize that information has the capacity to cause harm. I mean, nearly every action is going to cause some amount of harm. Even life-saving surgery is going to cause some harm. The question is whether the amount of good it brings is worth the cost.

Of course information can, theoretically, cause harm. My objection is to the suggestion that *this* information is causing harm, and to the overplaying of "OMG the terrorists will use Wikileaks to destroy the world!"-style hysteria that serves to do nothing but obscure the real terror, which is what these leaks reveal about the world and the people running it.

Focusing on hypothetical worst-case scenarios which have nothing to do with Wikileaks' actual policies while ignoring the very real and very horrifying crimes that are happening seems deeply misguided.