4 ms·
Oh no, it isn't. Look, I get that you've seen enough to either know the shit is happening or believe it is based on what you've seen happen. I'm in the same boa
by nickpsecurity 7y ago
Oh no, it isn't. Look, I get that you've seen enough to either know the shit is happening or believe it is based on what you've seen happen. I'm in the same boat. I'm just saying you're hurting your already-good credibility saying things like that.
No, it's not acceptable if it's a highly-controversial claim in an industry or topic that normally comes with proof of exploitation. They should've got it even if it was independent party vetting it that most would trust who wouldn't give too many details that would compromise an investigation. They could get money and/or advertising for doing the review. Otherwise, present it like it's information coming from anonymous, unvetted sources who could be full of shit.
- monocasa 7y agoLiterally some of the most influential journalism of all time has been sourced from anonymous informants that weren't vetted by third parties. We didn't find out who deep throat was until over thirty years later, after he was in a nursing home with dementia. Remember that anonymous doesn't mean unvetted. And that leak was over literally millions of lives, so it's not like an intelligence arm of a Nation state doing its job in peace time is so more serious that the standards are higher.
- nickpsecurity 7y agoDidn't Deep Throat's testimony activate a government response indicating it was probably true? Or did everyone involved act like they were full of it? Honestly, I can't remember what I read and I wasn't from that time either. Anonymous certainly doesn't mean unvetted. We should have something come out of the stories if something big is going on, though. If we don't, we have no reason to believe them if the source has other screwups on their record.