Not really, I think people are more riled up about a perceived about-face regarding it's founding principles, and to seemingly target certain orgs rather than stick to what many feel it was founded to do which is impartially publicly disclose confidential government & NGO information which is in the public interest.
If you purport to be holier than thou, you'd better make damn sure you at least stick to your story.
I dunno, it seems like the it's the news narrative about wikileaks doing the about-face.
I'm not some defender of wikileaks or Assagne, I just don't think who they are is all that important.
When I first heard of wikileaks a decade ago on slashdot, Assange was a tosser with some unpopular opinions and perspective. He also believed in the utility of releasing the entirety of source material to the public instead of a regular news outlet that limits it to the topics they have the time and interest to investigate and write. The broad strokes have remained constant even if the details haven't.
Ever since then, the press has been trying to find meaning in the Wikileaks dog-and-pony show. A circus that they themselves were complicit in creating. They've been trying, and failing, to understand this guy since 2010. The muddled mass of hot takes but no real insight is what they've been dumping onto us in the meantime.
That means that in the tech world they have been shunned and marginalised, like everybody who didn't bitch too much about the existence of Trump.
Now it doesn't matter whatever they say or do, they'll get negative press. They are blacklisted.