3 ms·
>The major issue is that if a whistleblower takes side, its no longer whistleblowing but espionage What? So if I'm an employee of the DNC, and I want to blow t
by boomboomsubban 4y ago
>The major issue is that if a whistleblower takes side, its no longer whistleblowing but espionage
What? So if I'm an employee of the DNC, and I want to blow the whistle on what I see by leaking documents, I need to somehow get the corresponding RNC documents or else I'm a spy?
This viewpoint makes no sense. Maybe you're calling Wikileaks the whistleblower, but they really can't be considered one.
- vntok 4y ago> What? So if I'm an employee of the DNC, and I want to blow the whistle on what I see by leaking documents, I need to somehow get the corresponding RNC documents or else I'm a spy? No, that's not what the parent is saying. If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoIt's their use of "whistleblower" that seems wrong. If a whistleblower was behind the DNC leaks, there's no way they had RNC documents.