That isn't the argument at all. The author is not saying "in the future Snowden will be a hero, therefore let's make him a hero in the present to align ourselves with history". That is not a good argument because history is not moral, and just because things happen it doesn't make them right.

What he is saying is that society is currently evolving in a direction of openness and transparency, and of holding those in power to account. This trend is visible right now; it's not a prediction.

What are the visible signs that "society is currently evolving in a direction of openness and transparency, and of holding those in power to account"? Sure seems like the public at large is ambivalent at best to my eyes, but love to hear otherwise.

That's how I read the author's argument. Doesn't mean I agree with him; I would agree with you that the signs are ambivalent at best.

> "the author can't know that until the future comes"

Yes, Capt. Obvious, we cannot know the future. However, we can think about it, and try to forecast.

Maybe you believe the author is wrong — I personally find the text overly optimistic. But please do not blame them for trying to forecast the future.

It's a circular argument though. Of course if you think you're right you think history will side with you.

It's a silly argument I keep hearing more and more. Pro-life people are on the wrong side of history, pro-choice people are on the wrong side of history, anti-gay marriage are on the wrong side of history...

Traditionally we as a society have moved towards more inclusive policies. There's a clear pattern. Women got basic rights, slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote, blacks got basic rights including voting, homosexuality officially no longer a mental illness, slowly the rights of LGBTs are being recognized. (My history sucks, so I probably got some of those out of order, but anyways.)

Opposing equal rights does put you on the wrong side of history, meaning you oppose this socially progressive pattern. It takes time, but the pattern is still there.

Can you give an example of a Whistleblower who exposed corruption who wasn't hailed as a hero after being vilified by those he exposed?

Just curious if you have an example to the contrary of the clear pattern so far in history.

But is that a clear pattern in history or just confirmation bias? For some Snowden is a traitor and history is full of traitors. Those terms are not neutral.

It's like saying terrorists are on the wrong side of history while the resistance are on the good side. Ok, now it's just about deciding which is which.

I'm not arguing against Snowden or whistleblowers here, I share the general sentiment here that what he did was for the greater good, but I find the argument of "the good side of history" particularly weak.

Since the consensus around these parts is that Snowden is a hero we better be careful not to devolve into mindless circlejerking à la reddit and try to keep interesting and insightful discussions.

At this rate tomorrow we'll read "snowden = good; NSA = bad" on the frontpage. That's just preaching to the choir.

It seems that you could argue that his disclosures have been more or less in the interest of the public at large. A traitor tends to steal/sell information for personal gain, providing them to an enemy directly. I can't think of any historical examples of traitors who exposed wrongdoings of the government they are betraying against its own public to said public. (but perhaps there are some?)

A traitor tends to be providing information of a primarily military use. You could try and argue that the mass dragnet of records is a military function... But that would be tantamount to saying that every citizen in America is a military target of their own government (oh wait... /s) and that opens a whole different can of worms.

I agree about not wanting to devolve into mindless high-fiving and preaching to the choir... But it seems difficult at this point to call the public disclosures so far a traitorous act. And public opinion seems to be tilting more and more towards that opinion as the weeks go by.

Regarding terrorists being on the 'wrong side of history' it really all depends who wins right? It also depends somewhat on who's history you are reading. For instance, had the Axis won in WWII, they would probably be referring to the bombing of Dresden as 'terrorism'.

Not quite same thing, but the Optimates who killed Caesar genuinely thought they were liberating Rome from a tyrant (they called themselves the Liberatores) and stuck around expecting to be hailed as saviours. They were not.

Pretty similar to what might have happened to Snowden had he stuck around? Agreed, not comparing the two seriously, because they arn't the same thing at all, but perhaps they should have left then returned after all had settled?

> "It's a circular argument though"

I am afraid it is not. You can objectively analyze the past and draw conclusions about the future, without presuming yourself right. (People usually call that "Science".)

When the guy hosting the weather report tells you it is going to rain, does it mean people hoping for a sunny day are on the "wrong side of history"?

Of course, some people make the "silly argument" you are referring to, but I think the original author is more subtle than that.