[mind-blight]

So their team is anonymous. While I understand the desire for that, trust is built through transparency. It's really hard to convince someone who's job, career, it potentially even life is at risk to trust random strangers on the Internet.

It seems like they need people willing to stretch their name to create credibility.

[ramon156]

Have we forgotten you can authorize witho authenticating? I can prove I'm inside the Google office without saying who I am

[dessimus]

The point is that how does the whistleblower know whether or not they are not whistleblowing to the very people or allies to those being reported on if who is behind it?

To pull an example out of thin air, would you risk whistleblowing to TruthWave on Amazon if you knew that the Washington Post was running TruthWave?

[embedding-shape]

Wrong direction, parent is asking for clarity who owns and operate the platform itself, not clarity around who the whistleblower is.

[dns_snek]

Does that prove much? I have been inside a Google office without ever having worked for Google (visitor).

[joshribakoff]

Then the service seems to provide zero value, there are already “untrusted” platforms. If i have to anonymize myself anyways, i can just post on Reddit/Twitter/Orange site directy.

[GuinansEyebrows]

took me all of 2 minutes to put a name to one of the folks involved in the project.

i think this is a good goal but i question the platform, based on this point.

[hn_acc1]

I mean, 35 years ago, a random stranger on the internet was MORE trustworthy in my eyes than some people I knew face-to-face.

These days? Pfft...

[6r17]

We all know how this ends lmao