• warmaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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:

    Would you trust an anonymous source ?

    Downvotes to an honest question. I should take a break from internet.

    • AlexanderESmith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t care who it is, they give the information, then authorities verify it. If it comes up verified, there you go.

      • Mountaineer@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • AlexanderESmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

        • AlexanderESmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          Then it still doesn’t matter. If an identified source gives information that isn’t verifiable, it’s still not actionable.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

        • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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 ;)

    • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

    • PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      This isn’t an allegation floating in the ether. Specific allegations can be investigated, usually pretty objectively.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Would you trust an anonymous source ?

      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.

      Downvotes to an honest question

      Honest question, my ass! It was obviously a rhetorical question meant to imply that anonymous sources are inherently not trustworthy.

      • warmaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          How? I’m literally arguing that anonymous whistleblowers aren’t inherently untrustworthy. That’s the OPPOSITE of what corporate shills keep saying!

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

    • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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?

    • 𝚝𝚛𝚔@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Downvotes to an honest question. I should take a break from internet.

      Complaining about internet numbers? That’s a downvote.

      • warmaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.