In point of fact, if the legal standing of their actions is the only thing that matters, as you imply, then the entire notion that Russia willfully acted to harm them collapses. How could Russia harm them by leaking details of things that are not illegal and therefore (purportedly) entirely acceptable?

If, on the other hand, we stick with the way that things have been presented by the DNC itself - that Russia willfully acted to bring them harm - then rather obviously even they are taking the position that the legal status of their actions is irrelevant.

Go ahead and pick either one - I don't care. Either there was nothing wrong with their actions, in which case they could not be harmed by having the details of their actions leaked, or they were harmed by the the leak of the details of their actions, in which case their actions were self-evidently judged to be wrong, and the legal standing of them is irrelevant.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

So you're arguing that misinformation is fair if a campaign has done anything that can be remotely described as damaging (and you refuse to say what they did that was so damaging).

How could Russia harm them by leaking details of things that are not illegal and therefore (purportedly) entirely acceptable?

By including disinformation? It's a pretty basic concepts, by lying.

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

I'm not sure why so many people are reacting like this to my comments. The Republican Senate Committee was able to accept there was a Russian disinfo campaign, not sure why Lemmy thinks that's all fine and dandy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election.