Distributed Denial of Secrets
ddosecrets.com

The administrators of the DDoSecrets website write that they have run out of money for funding. If they don’t raise $150,000 by January 31, 2024, they might be forced to suspend operations. This is written on the red banner that appears when you go to the site.

Info: Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets) is a journalist 501©(3) non-profit publishing and archiving leaks, and devoted to the free transmission of data in the public interest.

In more detail (from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Denial_of_Secrets):

Distributed Denial of Secrets, abbreviated DDoSecrets, is a non-profit whistleblower site founded in 2018 for news leaks. The site is a frequent source for other news outlets and has worked on investigations including Cyprus Confidential with other media organizations. In December 2023, the organization said it had published over 100 million files from 59 countries.

Sometimes referred to as a successor to WikiLeaks, it came to international attention for its June 2020 publication of internal police documents, known as BlueLeaks. The group has also published data on Russian oligarchs, fascist groups, shell companies, tax havens and banking in the Cayman Islands, as well as data scraped from Parler in January 2021 and from the February 2021 Gab leak. The group is also known for publishing emails from military officials, City Hall in Chicago and the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.

The site’s leaks have resulted in or contributed to multiple government investigations, including the second impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. During the Russo-Ukrainian War, they were considered one of the best public repositories of all the Russian files leaked since the invasion began.

    • Snot FlickermanEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      Because I’m not defending Wikileaks, chucklefuck! I’m pointing out that the US government was happy when they were leaking data on other people, and then unhappy when it was them in the crosshairs.

      I’m not here to debate the source of the DNC emails nor a literal conspiracy theory with no evidence that the RNC had been hacked, Wikileaks had the data, and that they refused to release it. You sound as bad as the fucking idiots who claim Seth Rich was the Wikileaks leaker. God damn, it’s been years and you’re still trotting this out like there’s a treasure trove of evidence they had those emails. There isn’t.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Wow, you’re spirited this morning. You do realize that the source that I first posted was Time and there are a shit ton of respected others if you put wikileaks and russia in your search engine, right? You’re vaguely saying that the “media” only reports what the government wants it to say while saying that I am listening to conspiracies, I think you need some mirror therapy on this.

        • Snot FlickermanEnglish
          4·
          9 months ago

          None of your links have evidence that:

          1. The RNC was hacked.
          2. That those emails were passed to Wikileaks.
          3. That Wikileaks, in possession of RNC emails, refused to release them, as a political act.

          That’s the stipulation you made in the first comment and have demanded I make answers for. When asked for you to present evidence of your claim of an RNC hack and Wikileaks choosing to not release, you’ve changed the subject. Some might call this “forum sliding.”

          You’re vaguely saying that the “media” only reports what the government wants it to say while saying that I am listening to conspiracies

          Yeah that’s not a purposefully gross misinterpretation of what I am saying at all.

            • Snot FlickermanEnglish
              2·
              9 months ago

              It doesn’t matter if they HAD the RNC emails or not

              It doesn’t matter if they HAD the RNC emails or not

              It doesn’t matter if they HAD the RNC emails or not

              You can’t be this obtuse, right?

              They can’t produce info on the RNC they don’t have. So because they couldn’t release info on both parties, it’s unfair and illegal, is that what you’re saying? That it’s only valid for them to leak on the DNC if they can do the same to the RNC? Because that’s bonkers stupid and you need to live in the real world. We don’t hide information because we need it to be “equal for both sides.”

              Literally, would you argue the same if they leaked the RNC emails but not the DNC emails???

              Dude, get a grip. You’re lost in the fucking sauce.

              • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                1·
                9 months ago

                Again, why would they only go after the DNC during an election year that it’s been proven that Russians had an interest in and were interfering with? My last question that I’m sure you’ll avoid.

                • Snot FlickermanEnglish
                  2·
                  9 months ago

                  If you don’t see yourself as subscribing to a conspiracy theory because you’ve decided that since they didn’t out the RNC it must mean they’re working for Russia, while ignoring the mountains of evidence Wikileaks leaked on the Bush admin, I don’t know what to tell you, other than you need your head checked.

                  That’s literally fantasy-land, mate. Without evidence, you’re literally just making shit up and are just as bad as the people you claim to hate.

                  Was Clinton working for Russia? It was her campaign strategy to elevate Donald Trump because she thought he would be easy to beat.

                  https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/