this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
182 points (97.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44331 readers
1032 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A whistleblower doesn't need a dead man's switch as they'd just release the document.
A muckracker does.
You may not be able to collect more if you publish everything at the start
True that...
A whistleblower is likely to have access to sensitive data or other forms of leverage not directly linked to whatever they're whistleblowing on. Of course this sort of insurance policy would be useful to them.
I think its useful for situation where I'm in process of collecting evidence, so I can keep tge switch just in case I get caught in the process but at least the evidence so far can be public