3 ms·

It's hard to blow the whistle anonymously, people seem to react poorly to anonymous accusations. There is even an amendment in the US constitution that mentions

by munin 8y ago

It's hard to blow the whistle anonymously, people seem to react poorly to anonymous accusations. There is even an amendment in the US constitution that mentions this. And even today on the Internet, if there is reporting of anonymous accusations against someone or a company for wrongdoing, people will ask (on this very message board) "oh if it was real, why won't the accusers come forward and be named?"

nobrains 8y ago
Because then there is no way to verify if the accusation is true?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sparkie 8y ago
Uh, that's completely the opposite scenario that I've seen over the past several years, where any accusation made against a white male are met by hoards of keyboard warriors quickly pointing the finger on social media, handing out a metaphorical death sentence before any trial has occurred. The need to ask for somebody to go public before investigating their claims is so that you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person.
- pjc50 8y ago
  >you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person. Yes, that's the traditional way for the powerful to hide their misdemeanors. It absolutely does not help in getting any kind of truth.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    The larger problem is that there is information asymmetry between the weak and the powerful. The powerful know almost everything about the weak, and it becomes trivial to discredit any of them based on some past evidence they can dig up. The weak know nothing about the powerful because everything is top secret and they use the former tactic to deal with anyone who speaks out. The goal isn't necessarily to collect everything. It is just to convince the population that they're being constantly monitored. The fear that they'll be "silenced" for speaking in public about the wrongdoings of the powerful is enough for most people to submit to their demands. Anyone who claims they "have nothing to hide," is delusional. Once enough people are in that state of fear, the state can make up something you done wrong and nobody is going to risk their neck to try and defend you.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Sure it does. For example, with both Kavanaugh and Arrington, information about the accusers made the accusations infinitely less credible.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> And even today on the Internet, if there is reporting of anonymous accusations against someone or a company for wrongdoing, people will ask (on this very message board) "oh if it was real, why won't the accusers come forward and be named?" An anonymous accusation has no weight. But that's not what they're for. They're a suggestion to investigate something. Because if it's real then there should be other evidence -- third party witnesses, documents, phone records, surveillance footage, a pattern of behavior where a more recent incident can actually be proven, etc. No one should take them seriously as evidence but journalists should take them seriously as tips. And if the journalists following the lead actually find something that can stand on its own, it's only then (and not before) that you have a real story instead of an unsubstantiated anonymous accusation. Anonymous tips are not worthless -- they're actually really important -- they're just not evidence.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Makes me wonder, why don't companies and government agencies spam journalists with false anonymous tips already, preventing any possible signal to get through the noise?
  - endominus 8y ago
    Probably because that would send a very strong signal that there is something going on in their organization that they don't want leaked. If their objective is "Do not get investigated by journalists," then drowning those journalists in noise is probably a net negative. They could instead start blasting out rumors about everyone else in their industry, but then their competitors have incentive and cause to sue them for defamation.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      On the other hand the Soviets, who could be safely assumed to have all sorts of conspiracies to hide, deployed this tactic successfully. The culture was supposedly so drowned in conspiracy theories that no one could be bothered to figure out which ones were true or worth caring about.
smsm42 8y ago
People react badly to anonymous accusation that rely solely on the word of the accuser. Because, indeed, it's impossible to evaluate this situation without knowing how trustworthy the accuser is. However, if the accusation is backed by the documents, nobody cares that the accuser is anonymous. Deep Throat has been anonymous for 31 years, and still his information has immense value. If you say "I heard X say Y" then maybe you're lying, maybe not - we shall see who you are and whether we could trust you. If you say "I've got a recording of X saying Y, made in a way that makes it extremely hard to fake" - nobody cares much who you are anymore, everybody cares about the recording now.

by munin 8y ago

nobrains 8y ago

Because then there is no way to verify if the accusation is true?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sparkie 8y ago

Uh, that's completely the opposite scenario that I've seen over the past several years, where any accusation made against a white male are met by hoards of keyboard warriors quickly pointing the finger on social media, handing out a metaphorical death sentence before any trial has occurred. The need to ask for somebody to go public before investigating their claims is so that you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person.

pjc50 8y ago
>you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person. Yes, that's the traditional way for the powerful to hide their misdemeanors. It absolutely does not help in getting any kind of truth.
- sparkie 8y ago
  The larger problem is that there is information asymmetry between the weak and the powerful. The powerful know almost everything about the weak, and it becomes trivial to discredit any of them based on some past evidence they can dig up. The weak know nothing about the powerful because everything is top secret and they use the former tactic to deal with anyone who speaks out. The goal isn't necessarily to collect everything. It is just to convince the population that they're being constantly monitored. The fear that they'll be "silenced" for speaking in public about the wrongdoings of the powerful is enough for most people to submit to their demands. Anyone who claims they "have nothing to hide," is delusional. Once enough people are in that state of fear, the state can make up something you done wrong and nobody is going to risk their neck to try and defend you.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Sure it does. For example, with both Kavanaugh and Arrington, information about the accusers made the accusations infinitely less credible.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> And even today on the Internet, if there is reporting of anonymous accusations against someone or a company for wrongdoing, people will ask (on this very message board) "oh if it was real, why won't the accusers come forward and be named?" An anonymous accusation has no weight. But that's not what they're for. They're a suggestion to investigate something. Because if it's real then there should be other evidence -- third party witnesses, documents, phone records, surveillance footage, a pattern of behavior where a more recent incident can actually be proven, etc. No one should take them seriously as evidence but journalists should take them seriously as tips. And if the journalists following the lead actually find something that can stand on its own, it's only then (and not before) that you have a real story instead of an unsubstantiated anonymous accusation. Anonymous tips are not worthless -- they're actually really important -- they're just not evidence.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Makes me wonder, why don't companies and government agencies spam journalists with false anonymous tips already, preventing any possible signal to get through the noise?
- endominus 8y ago
  Probably because that would send a very strong signal that there is something going on in their organization that they don't want leaked. If their objective is "Do not get investigated by journalists," then drowning those journalists in noise is probably a net negative. They could instead start blasting out rumors about everyone else in their industry, but then their competitors have incentive and cause to sue them for defamation.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    On the other hand the Soviets, who could be safely assumed to have all sorts of conspiracies to hide, deployed this tactic successfully. The culture was supposedly so drowned in conspiracy theories that no one could be bothered to figure out which ones were true or worth caring about.

smsm42 8y ago

People react badly to anonymous accusation that rely solely on the word of the accuser. Because, indeed, it's impossible to evaluate this situation without knowing how trustworthy the accuser is. However, if the accusation is backed by the documents, nobody cares that the accuser is anonymous. Deep Throat has been anonymous for 31 years, and still his information has immense value. If you say "I heard X say Y" then maybe you're lying, maybe not - we shall see who you are and whether we could trust you. If you say "I've got a recording of X saying Y, made in a way that makes it extremely hard to fake" - nobody cares much who you are anymore, everybody cares about the recording now.