undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmikeash7y ago0 comments

It strongly implies that it was a covert action by the US or its allies to cut him off from the world. When it was actually just his hosts getting tired of his shit.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

freeflight7y ago· 1 in thread

Wikileaks tweeted it was a "state actor" [0], which is not just technically true, it's actually true because Equador is a state actor and there's no reference or implication at all to the US in that Tweet.

[0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088

mikeashOP7y ago

What's the difference between "technically true" and "actually true"?

Just look at the discussion that occurred:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929

Everybody understands that phrase to mean some significant action. I am certain that Wikileaks knew that people would understand it that way. They could have said "the Ecuadorians cut off Julian's WiFi access" and people would have understood the situation. Instead, they used extremely slanted language and caused everyone to understand something completely different from what happened.

Communication is ultimately about creating certain thoughts in other people's minds. "Technically correct" gets you no points at all if you deliberately use language that will create incorrect thoughts in others.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse