this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
90 points (97.9% liked)

Showerthoughts

30017 readers
1008 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It seems like the ultimate way to show WHY and HOW a company is poorly run… or the inverse.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Literally every company would be review-bombed, because as soon as Company X gets a few bad reviews, they will bomb Competitor Y, and it snowballs from there. The best companies will be the ones that have the most employees paid to post reviews.

But yeah, let's do that. Users should learn to separate fact from fiction.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

All W2s should come with an anonymous review sheet, but you still need a centralized validator.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The problem is validating someone's review without revealing who wrote it. Reviewers can be pressured or paid to lie if they are not anonymous, but anyone can leave any review if they are anonymous.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I believe it should be possible to use cryptography to have the validator provide a key to the reviewer, and for the reviewer to sign the review with their key and the validator key, in such a way that a validator can validate a signed message used their key so is valid, but cannot know which reviewer it was. See Yang et. al. 2006 anonymous signature schemes in public key cryptography journal.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Of course that's possible, but it wouldn't be free. At some point, the person would need to be validated and assigned a private key that's tied to their identity. That's the hard part, the time consuming step. And the more automated it is, the easier it would be to spoof and lie.