3 ms·

Even if companies do not directly kill whistleblowers, they may use targeted strategies that bury them under so much legal fees that would financially ruin them

Even if companies do not directly kill whistleblowers, they may use targeted strategies that bury them under so much legal fees that would financially ruin them for life, have their career shattered and, through clandestine PR operations destroy their social life and public image to make an example of them, which leaves them with nothing left to fight for.

DoctorOetker 2y ago
I remember the first HN thread I saw where a lot of commenters chastised anyone who brought up the possibility of assassination, supposedly out of "respect" for the bereaved next of kin. I wonder if the family would have found sufficient courage to do what they deem an obvious necessity without seeing others ask the same questions they apparently had themselves. While a prediction market of actions can obviously lead to perverse incentives, a prediction market of comments may have some utility in aligning commenters utterances with their true beliefs. Where are those commenters now? Why aren't they chastising the parents to stop poking the hornets nest, out of respect for ... the other next of kin / friends / ...
KennyBlanken 2y ago
Or the company hires publicists who specialize in character assassination. There's a NY Times story about how this sort of thing is done around celebrities. 90% of what you read, watch, or listen to involving celebrities is manufactured attention-seeking or revenge PR. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/26/opinion/blake-lively-justin-baldoni.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/26/opinion/blake-lively-just... There seems to be a decent chance the Amber Herd hatefest on reddit and twitter was manufactured by Johnny Depp's PR team.
- dcrazy 2y ago
  And her NY Times op-ed was part of her own strategy to tarnish Depp. There’s a reason they were both found guilty of defamation.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  The “hatefest” was because of the trial. There were so many inconsistencies and flawed arguments from her side, along with damaging audio recordings, that made people feel that she had betrayed their trust in her initial claims. The clips from the trial went viral repeatedly. I doubt you need manufactured PR for that.
julianeon 2y ago
You're allowed to do that. You're not allowed to shoot them. It's a meaningful distinction. Disclaimer: for the record, and because I think it needs to be stated directly, I don't believe this man was killed by OpenAI.
- maeil 2y ago
  > You're allowed to do that. You're not allowed to shoot them. It's a meaningful distinction. So what? Why is this meaningful?
  - thephyber 2y ago
    One of these things is unremarkable to the extent that it happens all day, every day. The other is uncommon in developed countries that mostly follow the rule of law. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    What's meaningful about the distinction between killing someone and suing/smearing them? Really? The dispute process is rather different, for starters.
- nerdponx 2y ago
  You're not "allowed" to do that. Frivolous litigation is against federal law in the USA. There are also laws against harassment. You can get away with it, but you aren't technically allowed to do it.
  - crustaceansoup 2y ago
    Is there a meaningful difference between "technically not allowed but unenforced" and "allowed"? People and smaller corporations are drowned all the time with no real recourse other than "just be more rich so you can hire your own giant legal/PR/marketing teams"
- potsandpans 2y ago
  Oh, well if you're allowed to do that, then it's ok i guess.

DoctorOetker 2y ago

I remember the first HN thread I saw where a lot of commenters chastised anyone who brought up the possibility of assassination, supposedly out of "respect" for the bereaved next of kin. I wonder if the family would have found sufficient courage to do what they deem an obvious necessity without seeing others ask the same questions they apparently had themselves. While a prediction market of actions can obviously lead to perverse incentives, a prediction market of comments may have some utility in aligning commenters utterances with their true beliefs. Where are those commenters now? Why aren't they chastising the parents to stop poking the hornets nest, out of respect for ... the other next of kin / friends / ...

KennyBlanken 2y ago

Or the company hires publicists who specialize in character assassination. There's a NY Times story about how this sort of thing is done around celebrities. 90% of what you read, watch, or listen to involving celebrities is manufactured attention-seeking or revenge PR. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/26/opinion/blake-lively-justin-baldoni.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/26/opinion/blake-lively-just... There seems to be a decent chance the Amber Herd hatefest on reddit and twitter was manufactured by Johnny Depp's PR team.

dcrazy 2y ago
And her NY Times op-ed was part of her own strategy to tarnish Depp. There’s a reason they were both found guilty of defamation.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
The “hatefest” was because of the trial. There were so many inconsistencies and flawed arguments from her side, along with damaging audio recordings, that made people feel that she had betrayed their trust in her initial claims. The clips from the trial went viral repeatedly. I doubt you need manufactured PR for that.

julianeon 2y ago

You're allowed to do that. You're not allowed to shoot them. It's a meaningful distinction. Disclaimer: for the record, and because I think it needs to be stated directly, I don't believe this man was killed by OpenAI.

maeil 2y ago
> You're allowed to do that. You're not allowed to shoot them. It's a meaningful distinction. So what? Why is this meaningful?
- thephyber 2y ago
  One of these things is unremarkable to the extent that it happens all day, every day. The other is uncommon in developed countries that mostly follow the rule of law. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
- itishappy 2y ago
  What's meaningful about the distinction between killing someone and suing/smearing them? Really? The dispute process is rather different, for starters.
nerdponx 2y ago
You're not "allowed" to do that. Frivolous litigation is against federal law in the USA. There are also laws against harassment. You can get away with it, but you aren't technically allowed to do it.
- crustaceansoup 2y ago
  Is there a meaningful difference between "technically not allowed but unenforced" and "allowed"? People and smaller corporations are drowned all the time with no real recourse other than "just be more rich so you can hire your own giant legal/PR/marketing teams"
potsandpans 2y ago
Oh, well if you're allowed to do that, then it's ok i guess.