this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
880 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
60260 readers
3311 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not. What do you get as a reward for blowing the whistle? Genuinely?
There's no bounty, even if there was you wouldn't get it for at least a year after you blow the whistle.
Once it's discovered it's you, you're fired. There goes your paycheck, your health insurance. Now your home is in jeopardy and you have no decent income verification to get a new one.
Good luck working in any job even remotely related to what you know. You now have a stigma in any background check and while a privately owned mom & pop might look at you favorably, there ain't a single corporation who will take pride in hiring you. You're risky.
The most ethical person, is one with no debt, who owns their home, and has 8 months expenses saved up. That's not most Americans right now.
This is also why there was such coordinated effort to shut down wikileaks, or to at least stall out the cultural movement that was building behind it.
If you give people a methodology to whistleblow that at least on paper allows them to stay anonymous and avoid putting their life/livelyhood/survival in jeapordy, that removes one of the biggest disincentives.
What do ethics have to do with saving money and owning property? Do poor people not have ethics?
They can't really afford the risk it entails, is the point they are trying to make.
And I’m saying it’s a point based on no evidence. History is riddled with people making sacrifices for the greater good. It’s also riddled with the people that own things doing nothing. Financial comfort does not increase the likelihood that someone will rock the boat and become a whistleblower. There is no factual basis for that statement.
So what, then bribes and intimidation just... aren't actually effective ways of bending morals?
I gotta say I have 0 papers backing me, but I feel like the fact that the very concepts are words in the English language carries some weight.
It's easier to be ethical when you have nothing to lose .
I don’t understand how having things and being well off means a person has nothing to lose. Have none of y’all seen Trading Places? People value different things.
I’d be curious to know if the whistleblowers of the last 25 years or so match this description of the “most ethical person”. I doubt it.
I think the phrasing they wanted was "The person with the least disincentive to do the ethical thing".
These people aren't inherently more ethical. They simply have the fewest barriers standing in the way of turning it into action.
I can agree more with this statement.
... How much are you willing to overlook to keep yourself from going homeless?
There just ain't enough protection for whistleblowers right now.
I’m still stuck on why you think someone with money has more ethics. Do you think someone financially stable is more prone to being altruistic? Being a whistleblower is about doing something beyond yourself. What if the person with a fully paid off house and savings has family? Are they still going to make the same decisions? How did that person obtain wealth?
I don’t disagree with your list but I very much disagree with your conclusion. Honor and altruism do not correlate with owning property and having money.
You don't share food if you're starving. You don't share time if you work 12 hour days, every day.
If you spend all your energy on survival, you got no energy to spare on anyone else. I bet our hypothetical starving person would be moral and share, if they had the chance and materials.
If they don't... then it's not a matter of won't it's can't. People are more likely to share food they have excess of, time they have excess of. If they can't spare it, they won't.
That is a misreading/misinterpretation of the original statement.
I believe what dukeofdummies is saying, is that people with a financial cushion have fewer obstacles to acting on ethical principle, whereas your average person living pay check to pay check will be more cautious about whistleblowing because the consequences (loss of employment, vexatious lawsuits, blacklisting) will be felt more severely. Moreso if they have a family to support.
I consider myself to be ethical, but i live in a wage economy. If i see behaviour which needs to be reported, but i believe that the organisation/society will punish me for speaking out, i will wait until I've secured an alternative livelihood or am relatively safer before blowing the whistle.