I bet money that there will be zero consequences for the deciding officials.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
82 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
834 readers
262 users here now
Tech related news and discussion. Link to anything, it doesn't need to be a news article.
Let's keep the politics and business side of things to a minimum.
Rules
No memes
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Why is vulnerable in question marks as if it weren't true. Shitty article by a shitty journal.
I think they're indicating that "vulnerable" is the opinion of "whistleblower" and not the writer.
I know, but it removes credibility. It's minimising and obfuscating, essentially defending the company's version of the truth instead of the whistleblower.
You are reading the headline as if it was a comment. If it were a comment, yes the quotes make it almost seem sarcastic. But news headlines traditionally have different grammar rules and here it means it's a quote.
You can argue that the traditions are stupid but within the context of journalism, nothing is wrong with the headline
I guess I am, but it does read as sarcastic and discrediting to me. You don't see quotation marks when journalists write about employees "quiet quitting" for example, so it does seem one-sided to protect the corporations.
I think you would see that if the headline was directly quoting a CEO. Like
CEO of Nestle Blames "Quiet Quitting", Calls For Mandatory RTO
But you therefore admit any company can make any statement and if it doesn't go through the CEO it will omit the quotation marks..?
Because that's my gripe about all this, companies are given the benefit of the doubt.
No? That's not what I'm saying. The position of the quotee doesn't matter at all. Example:
Denmark summons US diplomat over Greenland ‘influence’ attempts
That article headline has exactly one claim, the 'influence' claim.
Yet there are two within the one we're talking about:
"DOGE uploaded live copy of Social Security database"
And
"Vulnerable"
Yet only the latter is in quotation marks. Selective quotation seems intentional and meant to disparage the message being spread here.
Because the journalist can't state as fact that the database is vulnerable, they're not an expert in the field. They quote someone who claims that. That's called good journalism.
Oh? So explain why the claim about the live data being uploaded isn't in quotation marks? And instead, why the one disparaging comment about the security of cloud storage solutions is in quotation marks?
My bet? Because they don't want to piss off the owners of the storage solutions, and thus don't give a crap about the whistleblower.
Edit with another example of an article with multiple claims where only one is quoted:
