Am I being too cynical if I read from this that they were fine with it until they got fired?
Honest question. I’m really not sure if I’m just becoming too cynical.
Honest question. I’m really not sure if I’m just becoming too cynical.
But it isn't easy to tell the difference between that kind of no-time-to-check recklessness and actual malice, at least in any one instance. (You might be able to tell statistically, at the level of the whole government. Not with any one department, though.)
But it's just as destructive as actual malice, so maybe it doesn't matter whether it's malice or not.
It's also harder to speak out when you're a US government employee, but now that they've been fired ...
> Am I being too cynical if I read from this that they were fine with it until they got fired?
What is *it*? What exactly are you suggesting they were fine with? If you don't spell it out, you're asking a dishonest question because it's the type of vaguely defined question that dishonest people use to let peoples' imaginations run wild.
The people working at 18F were always about making government work better and more efficiently.
Absolutely nothing on the page suggests they were fine with the sledgehammering happening or granting access to systems that hold sensitive information. If anything, it suggests they wanted to be kept around to moderate what's happening and help lessen the damage.
The issue isn't whether you're becoming too cynical, it's that you've defaulted to a cynical theory, you've failed to examine your theory critically and you asked a question in a way that is indistinguishable from a dishonest question based on a dishonest premise.
I know you're upset and I am too. The United States is in a very embarrassing state right now and it's frustrating, right? Especially the amount of misinformation, disinformation, astroturfing and all that going on. I was fortunate to receive a number of helpful responses soon after my question, which helped guide discussion on the topic in other forums.
My point wasn’t that you should have known to trust the organization. I’d never ask you to trust anyone or anything.
My argument is that the question’s vague phrasing and misleading premise make it nearly impossible to answer while also inviting the reader’s imagination to spiral into meaningless speculation.
While it may not directly inject misinformation, it fosters the kind of speculation that often leads to it—because, believe it or not, grown adults can be surprisingly impressionable.