Sign into an existing account

Yes, the definition of a whistleblower is someone who attacks the practices and profits of an entity, usually a large corporation.

My point is, allowing such a structure to exist in the first place makes you complicit. Allowing "whistleblowers" to then attack them is pure hypocrisy, and is not a legitimate exoneration of your complicity.

Yes, although poorly worded. The premise functionally is why would you expect anything else when a lone, naive, possibly greedy, fool tries to stop a massive evil entity that should have never existed in the first place?

If you have dirt on a corporation that's involved in illegal/harmful activity, anonymously provide the "proper authorities" with just enough information that they should investigate but can't figure out who sent it easily.
Once they refuse to do anything, which they will, release all the information publicly, along with evidence of your attempts to have proper channels deal with it and their refusal to do so.

Now there's no point in killing you because they can't "shut you up" as you've said everything already. Likewise, the public eye will be on them, so killing you out of spite is a bad idea as it carries a significant risk of vigilantism. The only thing they can do is sue you for violating a NDA, which again is a bad idea as the public's eye is now on them, and any judge is going to factor in getting randomly shot if he violates the law to uphold the NDA in the face of the corporations illegal/harmful activity.


TLDR: These fuckers need to stop trying to blackmail pure evil, or selling information for personal gain, as it's only achieving getting them killed.