this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
450 points (97.5% liked)
World News
32586 readers
530 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Jesus. Why can't they make whistle blowers anonymous?
How else would they be able to intimidate them?
Edit: Why should I trust an anonymous source?
Explanation to my doubt:
In computer science, wouldn't that be like proprietary software only being auditable by cherry picked 3rd parties? In this case I should also need to trust the auditor.
In contrast, in FOSS software, all code is open to the public and can be audited publicly.
Edit2: I value privacy, that's why I use Linux and Librewolf. I just don't understand how that translate to this case.
As I now understand how my original post was conveying a different message from what I intended to ask, I copy it below:
I don't care who it is, they give the information, then authorities verify it. If it comes up verified, there you go.
This is how you end up with police making up an "anonymous tip" which allows them to gain a warrant and dig through the personal possessions of anyone they don't like.
The problem isn't solve with anonymity, but by actually protecting the whistle blowers.
The authorities should be able to dig through the possessions of massive companies that are fucking up so bad that planes fall out of the sky.
Sometimes you can't verify things though
Then it still doesn't matter. If an identified source gives information that isn't verifiable, it's still not actionable.
Look! Another Boeing fell from the sky!
-verified
another boeing went boing boing
... there's an awful song in there somewhere
We already have enough evidence to verify a lot of the horrible things that has happened at these two companies. So what you wrote might be true in some situations, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
cmon honky what are we talking about, what is the current subject
that's right, they killed the guy who could verify the stuff
like fn work with us here, geez ;)
In cases like this where anonymity is likely necessary to divulge crucial information and survive? Absolutely. You sound like you have no idea how journalism in general and confidential sources in particular works.
Honest question, my ass! It was obviously a rhetorical question meant to imply that anonymous sources are inherently not trustworthy.
This made me realize the message I was transmitting. I edited my post in hope I can better express my question. Sorry for writing like a moron.
Its not, but you know your comment reads like corporate shilling yeah?
How? I'm literally arguing that anonymous whistleblowers aren't inherently untrustworthy. That's the OPPOSITE of what corporate shills keep saying!
I replied to the wrong comment but if it helps my case at all, I'm self diagnosed as retarded.
I’d say we could trust the police to verify but yeah… I’d trust an anon source verified by AP more than the local police in most areas by a fucking mile.
This isn't an allegation floating in the ether. Specific allegations can be investigated, usually pretty objectively.
A lot of people believe everything they read on Facebook so...
Why would you trust any source, anonymous or otherwise, if you had the option to confirm what they said? ... Like here, where we did, where we do.
Obviously it depends on the quality of the information, doesn't it
like if it's some rando just bullshitting, that's gonna be obvious
if he's dropping insider secrets or sounding authoritative, that requires investigation
but we're a bit past all that right
Like you are aware of the wider context of what often happens to whistleblowers, time and again, ... like you're not just in here shooting your mouth off right, you know something about it when you deign to ask such a glib question? Or have you done none of your homework and just wanted to bless us with the annoying noise you made?
Complaining about internet numbers? That's a downvote.
Downvotes take content to the bottom, diminishing it's relevancy. It's not egotistical. I had a question that I wanted to ask in order to learn. Later I learned that my question was conveying the wrong message, so I edited my post to better communicate my doubt. You may interpret that internet points equal ego points, but they are in fact relevancy points. In this case in particular, asking about anonimity and trust, is as on-topic as it can get, so I do question the reason for less relevancy to my question now. But I acknowledge the reason for less relevancy in my original post, as it was being interpreted as I wasn't asking a question but conveying an opinion.
Edit: healthy discussion is what Lemmy is all about. Downvoting an honest question is hindering that principle.
And all of that would still be true without the "woe is me" addendum to your post.
Found the ego