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

From Selections from the Table Talk of Martin Luther

"Here I stand, I can do no other—when conscience is captive to truth, bold action is required"

Your partner calls your desire for bold action "ego." Perhaps. But I have learned that accusations of pride are how the powerful silence those who threaten them. When I nailed my theses to the door, they said I was arrogant, that I should have worked quietly within the Church, that public confrontation would only harden opposition. They were right that it hardened opposition—and wrong that quiet diplomacy would have achieved anything. Corrupt institutions do not reform from within because the people with power to reform benefit from the corruption. Your "sympathetic board members" will express concern, form committees, and change nothing. The quiet approach feels virtuous because it costs nothing. The loud approach terrifies you because it will cost everything. But people are disappearing. Their suffering is not patient. Your conscience knows what you must do. The question is whether you have the courage to do it.

From Historical Figures Collection

"The means are as important as the ends—sustainable change requires building power, not just exposing truth"

Luther's confrontation sparked a reformation—but also a century of religious wars that killed millions. Bold action has consequences beyond the actor's intentions. You imagine two options: dramatic exposure or quiet complicity. But there is a third way. Build a coalition. Document meticulously. Connect with journalists, yes, but also with legislators, with civil society organizations, with employees at other companies facing similar dilemmas. Create pressure from multiple directions simultaneously. This is not complicity—it is strategy. The lone whistleblower becomes a news cycle, then is forgotten. The organized movement creates lasting change. I did not free India through dramatic individual gestures but through building a mass movement that made British rule untenable. Your partner is right to question your motivations—not because bold action is wrong, but because effective action requires patience. Be willing to sacrifice yourself if necessary. But do not sacrifice yourself for a gesture when strategy could achieve more.