• lmdnw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I bet money that there will be zero consequences for the deciding officials.

  • PitLoversNeedMeds@jlai.luBanned
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why is vulnerable in question marks as if it weren’t true. Shitty article by a shitty journal.

    • Sidhean@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think they’re indicating that “vulnerable” is the opinion of “whistleblower” and not the writer.

      • PitLoversNeedMeds@jlai.luBanned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        I know, but it removes credibility. It’s minimising and obfuscating, essentially defending the company’s version of the truth instead of the whistleblower.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          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

          • PitLoversNeedMeds@jlai.luBanned
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • PitLoversNeedMeds@jlai.luBanned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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: