←back to thread

98 points _gdim | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.22s | source
Show context
mind-blight ◴[] No.45764179[source]
So their team is anonymous. While I understand the desire for that, trust is built through transparency. It's really hard to convince someone who's job, career, it potentially even life is at risk to trust random strangers on the Internet.

It seems like they need people willing to stretch their name to create credibility.

replies(5): >>45764300 #>>45765173 #>>45765849 #>>45766213 #>>45766966 #
ramon156 ◴[] No.45764300[source]
Have we forgotten you can authorize witho authenticating? I can prove I'm inside the Google office without saying who I am
replies(4): >>45764358 #>>45764472 #>>45765363 #>>45767197 #
dessimus ◴[] No.45764472[source]
The point is that how does the whistleblower know whether or not they are not whistleblowing to the very people or allies to those being reported on if who is behind it?

To pull an example out of thin air, would you risk whistleblowing to TruthWave on Amazon if you knew that the Washington Post was running TruthWave?

replies(2): >>45765424 #>>45766977 #
1. hn_acc1 ◴[] No.45766977[source]
Or, would you whistleblow on Tesla, if you knew any out of a hundred companies was behind it, like Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, ...? About the only "big" entity I MIGHT trust would be Berkshire Hathaway..