this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
703 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
2858 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
Does anyone else find it statistically significant how often whistle blowers commit suicide within a few days of releasing information or making a statement?
We need to start holding companies accountable when their actions lead to someone’s suicide.
It was the Basilisk!
Woooooooo
One minute they’re all like “if I die it’s definitely not suicide” and the next they are changing their mind and going through with it…
"Those wacky whistleblowers always kill themselves when their lie is exposed" -The Man
Yes, but it's important to not immediately assume that it's because they've been killed.
I'd wager a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars looking to get recognition. When their lie catches up with them, they realize they've lost the one thing they had going for them and decide to end it all.
In the digital age where information can be shared so freely and so easily, there's not really an excuse for whistleblowers to be like "wait until THIS date" before revealing their information.
So do you have some research stating that or is it just a sort of feeling?
Because that's an incredibly wild allegation to be making, impeaching someone's veracity, especially after a fatality, should absolutely come with some kind of evidence.
It's just speculation. I don't know, I could be wrong, but I'd wager I'm right.
Do you think there's not a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers who are liars?
This, ladies and gentlemen and all those in between, is what the professionals call “talking out of your ass.”
Uhh, no. I didn't say it was true, I said I think it would be true.
If you equate that to "talking out of my ass" then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
I cannot possibly say but what I would say is that there is a significantly higher likelihood than what he is saying is correct. Given that you basically can prove it for yourself by simply asking the AI to quote copyrighted content, the fact that it can do that rather demonstrates that copyright content was acquired illegally, and if the copyright holders never talked to openAI, then openAI by definition never got permission.
It's weird that you would assume malice on everyone's behalf by default, what would they have to gain by it?
Can you read? I never assumed malice on everyone's behavior. I said a statistically significant amount.
Yep and I've asked you and you've got no statistics.
No, I don't.
Do you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOVbAmknKUk
I think there's not enough evidence to prove that, so no. Why would you lie in the way that you're most likely going to be killed from?
What does this mean?
Whistleblowing is high risk and people get killed for it?
What evidence do you have for this?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0el3r2nlko
You can prove he was murdered? Have you taken this information to the police?
This is a very unlikely situation.
These stories of nefarious liars abusing poor defenseless corporations would be publicized widely if true. We'd have prominent, well known examples.
This needs people who think the threats and reputational damage of being a whistleblower are worth it for the 'recognition', who are smart enough to construct a believable sounding claim but not smart enough to see the inevitable consequences. That specific kind of person is going to be much rarer than people who work for a legitimately shitty company and don't like it.
Why is that important? No you assume they are/were killed until someone has some real fuckin proof about it
Well, all the evidence points to a suicide so you don't really have a point here.
Haha okay present your evidence
Do you have any evidence that invalidates this?
https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-russians-fall-windows-putin-ukraine-war-1781790
They just fell out of a window. The news said. Supported by other state apparatuses.
Now I'm not really running around believing this kid was killed I truly dunno him or this situation enough but to read one article about something like this and just take it at face value isn't it. Look at Boeing I think three whistleblowers died in connection to them, look at Edward Snowden, look at how people act in the Trump administration, they were afraid to be whistleblowers. There's a slew of assassinations in the news.
I don't think it was a suicide, it also could've been a suicide but to really plant your feet on your evidence being this article. I dunno bro I think it's a little foolish.
I didn't even say he wasn't killed.
I said, I'd wager there's a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers who are liars and end up killing themselves when their lie catches up with them.
You all blew it out of proportion in part because of the snowball effect and in other part because of poor reading comprehension.
The next generation is truly taking hold.
uh huh
how old are you Mr jumps to defend what the article says and then backpedal?
You can't prove a negative.
That's literally how police investigations work, you start assuming a crime has been committed and try to see if you can find evidence of a crime being committed.
You don't start assuming suicide by default. Not unless you're a corrupt cop anyway.
Yes you can. Mathematicians do it all the time.
But that's beside the point. I can prove you didn't kill yourself by showing that someone else did
This isn't proving a negative? Lol.
This whistleblower is dead, they would be suspect #1 along with close family and friends. This is literally what the first step of an investigation should look like.
I'd wager that baseless claims such as these are statistically likely to be backed by click farms and corporations looking to control a narrative or, at the very least, create enough noise to muddy the signal.
I could go on- but the point is made.
On the off chance you actually have that thought rattling around in that cavern between your ears... I think you need to possibly exercise more critical thought and familiarize yourself with concepts like Occam's razor.
Everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinion... Including you. With that said: it is my opinion that you are either a paid actor, an idiot, or a troll.
I mean, you can wager whatever you want but it's possible you're wrong. You people are blowing my words out of proportion, probably because you see the downvote ratio and can't formulate your own ideas.
For example, if you think I'm wrong without any information to contradict me, then you're also speculating.
You should take a break from these forums. It's clear you're willing to twist your brain into knots just to fit in with the popular narrative, and that's not healthy.
Gonna block you now. Goodbye, and good luck.
I started my reasons for thinking you are wrong but I'll clarify: It's illogical and baseless.
I'll expand.
While neither of our assessments of the unfortunate ends these people had are based in hard fact - one of them is far more probable:
Option A: multiple people tied up in whistleblowing cases involving large profit driven corporations both lied and got 'caught' in the lie (despite not giving testimony yet in many of these cases) ... and elect to independently off themselves. Each time.
Option B: A whistleblower threatens exposing said companies to considerable losses or penalties (which would likely result in losses.) It is decided by the company or an individual in the company (who probably has something to lose or gain) that the whistleblower needs to go. Whistleblower commits suicide by dubious means.
Option C: Basically option B but whistleblower is racked with guilt for being part of whatever occurred and opts to take their life as a means of atonement (misguided as that can be.)
Two of these options rely on simple logical human behavior well known to tie into death: greed and corruption - and guilt and sorrow. Your option suggests broadly that, under minimal pressure, all/most of these people are just sprinting to the most extreme exit under scrutiny. The odds of that being the case, repeatedly, are infinitesimally small. Corruption and corporations go hand in hand and you don't have to look hard to find a case of it.
So I'll reiterate: it is my opinion that your opinion is based in a world of pure fantasy... and only an idiot or a troll would actually believe it.
Fair point, although I can't say I agree with it fully