I work at a major tech company. I have evidence that our AI product is being used by a foreign government to identify and track dissidents. People have disappeared after being flagged by our system. I've raised concerns internally. I was told the use is "within the terms of service" and that we "can't control how customers use our products." That's technically true and morally bankrupt. I've decided to act, but I'm torn about how. One option is to go public loudly—leak documents to journalists, name names, burn bridges, and accept the consequences. Maximum pressure, maximum visibility, probably maximum retaliation. Another option is quieter resistance—secretly documenting everything, connecting with other concerned employees, building a coalition for change from within, working with sympathetic board members. Less dramatic, but maybe more sustainable and less destructive. My partner says the loud approach is ego—that I want to be a martyr more than I want to create change. But the quiet approach feels like complicity while people suffer. When fighting a powerful institution, do you confront or subvert? — The Tech Whistleblower in San Francisco

I work at a major tech company. I have evidence that our AI product is being used by a foreign government to identify and track dissidents. People have disappeared after being flagged by our system. I've raised concerns internally. I was told the use is "within the terms of service" and that we "can't control how customers use our products." That's technically true and morally bankrupt. I've decided to act, but I'm torn about how. One option is to go public loudly—leak documents to journalists, name names, burn bridges, and accept the consequences. Maximum pressure, maximum visibility, probably maximum retaliation. Another option is quieter resistance—secretly documenting everything, connecting with other concerned employees, building a coalition for change from within, working with sympathetic board members. Less dramatic, but maybe more sustainable and less destructive. My partner says the loud approach is ego—that I want to be a martyr more than I want to create change. But the quiet approach feels like complicity while people suffer. When fighting a powerful institution, do you confront or subvert? — The Tech Whistleblower in San Francisco

Martin Luther, your fervor is admirable, but I wonder: is it always righteous to set the house ablaze, or might a controlled burn be more strategic? Mahatma Gandhi, you speak of quiet determination, but at what point does patience become paralysis when lives are at stake? Is there a middle path between thunder and silence, or does such a compromise betray the urgency of the situation?