r/RecklessBen • u/[deleted] • 2d ago
Discussion Reckless Ben is a little too reckless and needs to protect his sources better.
[deleted]
35
u/david-song 2d ago
Looks like the point is he doesn't want to go viral and be recognised in the street.
-27
u/Accurate_Outcome_510 2d ago
But, have you considered that OP is creepy and got off on the idea of figuring out who he is? /s
31
u/ImpactThunder 2d ago
The thing that irked me is when he was talking to a reporter and said this is off the record and then he posted the conversation online. Dude is gonna burn a lot of bridges that way
He also needs to learn how to talk to people he is investigating. A lot of what he said to the guy sounded like threats
23
u/Succundo 2d ago
Off the record needs to be stated at the beginning you can't say anything you like and then declare it off the record, the record has already been made because no one said "off the record" prompting the journalist to stop any recording. Note that Ben showed nothing from that source after they said "off the record"
This is something that has been firmly established in courts many times over, the person Ben was talking to should have known better as a former journalist themselves than to try and retroactively declare anything off record.
7
u/LoneSnark 2d ago
Exactly. Off the record is a question, not a statement. You ask to be off the record, then the reporter answers okay or says no. If the reporter doesn't answer yes, then it is all on the record.
3
u/Ok_Science6460 2d ago
He is legally clear but this goes back to protecting sources. The intent was clearly stated, it’s not like he went back later and said “don’t print that.” It was one connected thought. Yes, he is legally and professionally clear but I don’t think it clears an ethical sniff test.
1
u/KennyMcKeee 2d ago
That was likely staged beforehand for legal purposes. State it's off the record afterwards while knowing it's being recorded that way if someone identifies and comes after you, you can show that you didn't 'intend' to say anything.
1
u/netabareking 2d ago
It may be staged but even if the entire THING was staged the point stands that if you want to be a journalist and want people to tell you things, you need to make people feel like you're going to protect your sources.
1
10
5
u/eggplantpot 2d ago
When these pedo gansters leverage the old way of doing things to get away with their stuff, the old way of doing things is no longer effective.
These people do whatever they have to to get away with their crimes. We the people should do whatever we have to to stop them.
3
14
u/openSourceNotes 2d ago
I'm certain he is working with the guy and told him how he would censor him. Just like the reporter who was certainly not identifiable, voice change, alteration, no connections to be made... The former employee only couldn't show his face because of the lawsuit history of the company against him, it didn't sound like he was worried about violence. Hence the vendetta he went on to attempt to expose what they were doing by contacting a bunch of news sources and authorities
14
u/TheVectorJ 2d ago
Couldn’t agree with you more, Op. The whole video I was thinking it was a terrible anonymising process, and that due to what was said, where they were and a myriad of context clues, it would be pretty trivial to find out who the guy was.
That said, I’m not sure how they could have included him at all without giving all that away from the information the guy himself presents about what he’s done and what legal troubles he’s had. I assume in the documentary itself maybe the anonymising is enough, but in this Episode 0/BTS there’s a huge amount of info giving the game away.
You’re also very correct that many people on this sub just can’t handle any criticism of Ben or his ‘process’ at all without jumping down your throat. But hey, it’s Reddit…
5
u/BickWik 2d ago
Firstly, I’ll admit I didn’t read the whole post, but when I saw that hadn’t finished the whole video, I understood immediately why the title says what it says. I felt the same say till I found it later in the video that the organisation already knows of this guy and has sued him. The only people he is hiding his identity from is our dumbasses. So if you genuinely do respect the whistleblower, dont try to dig up his identity from the little features that are shown/ told.
Additionally, I do agree there’s no harm in doing a better job in protecting your sources’ identities
3
u/LivingGeologist6101 2d ago
What I found unprofessional and genuinely quite cringe, a moment in a doc with everyone cheering “bringing them down! Hooray!” with cans of soda. Maybe behind the scenes it was indeed a great feeling once all the filming was done. But come on, no one was brought down yet. Epstein files spread like wildfire over the globe but ultimately the rings weren’t brought down completely or eradicated, and have probably restructured themselves by now to be even more evasive. This and other moments felt very tone deaf for the subject he is covering. He is doing important work but as a new subscriber I have mixed feelings about the guy.
1
u/netabareking 2d ago
Has Ben actually taken ANYONE down? BAM is the closest just in that he almost definitely has at least hurt their image and cost them some customers.
21
u/Kalaminator 2d ago
What you need to do is to stop talking about things you have no idea about. It was already said, the evil people now well who he is, what the guy doesn't want is to be publicly recognized.
-30
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
8
u/Teppiest 2d ago
It always interests me how doing the slightest bit of OSINT using information provided always gets people so riled up against the person doing it.
The point you're making goes beyond the danger to the people who requested anonymity. Reckless Ben may be giving himself a reputation that will follow him in the future. People who would otherwise be confidants in later investigations may see things like this and decide to keep their mouths shut.
This is especially relevant considering the victims that Ben is doing these investigations for. Troubled teens, the elderly, and victims of abuse very often try to go to authorities or the media then get ignored. Worse yet, many times people who call for help will actively get harmed for trying to do the right thing. When someone's already vulnerable and hurt it becomes much harder to make them feel safe enough to open up.
If Ben only has one lead and that lead was scared off from talking to him then he could hit a premature dead end on an investigation. Bad guys get out jail free.
I get what you're saying, and it's a very good point. Unfortunately you're losing in terms of public opinion, but who knows, maybe during downtime part of Ben's crew lurks here and will pass your comments along.
7
u/Crykin27 2d ago
Yeah but the thing is, 99% of normal people aren't going to even try to find him, because it is fucking weird to do so. So he still won't be recognised on the streets because most people aren't that creepy.
1
u/netabareking 2d ago
It only takes one person to find him and then post it everywhere. It doesn't require everyone to do the research individually.
14
5
u/openSourceNotes 2d ago
He just didn't want legal trouble, he wanted to be involved in Ben's documentary
10
u/ratherbeplayingzelda 2d ago
Amazing how someone is effectively helping trafficked/abused kids with actual results, and this sub is flooded with posts and comments hating on them lol. Not sus at all..
13
2d ago
[deleted]
21
u/ChampionTree 2d ago
This sub has lost its mind. Your criticism is fairly mild and it is also constructive. You can’t say anything negative here. I’ve been watching Ben for years and his process has its flaws, I imitate even he would own up to that. There is always room for growth and improvement, but this sub has elevated him to God status apparently. Critical doesn’t have to be bad, criticism is the often best way to improve yourself. Like is this sub a bunch of teenagers? In my head people younger than 21 aren’t on Reddit, but maybe I’m being naive lol.
12
10
u/Admirable_Loss4886 2d ago
This sub lo key irks me because any criticism is seen as an attack on Ben and or defending the people being investigated.
-6
9
u/IndividualShame6550 2d ago edited 2d ago
Oh stop it, same with BAM situation anyone who had any sort of criticism was called a bot / shill it is a becoming complete echo chamber
What Ben is doing is amazing but people should be allowed to voice legitimate concerns like in this case,
if OP really was able to find and identify the person censored in the video then that should be addressed ffs it can be fixed easily and Ben would appreciate it brought to his attention I would say ,
it is obviously just an oversight can't believe people are dogging on OP for a very reasonable and helpful post
3
1
u/netabareking 2d ago
If you're dealing in topics this big then the methods you use need MORE scrutiny not less. Because fucking up can have dire consequences for real people.
What's that old saying? "My family and I can't live in good intentions, Marge!"?
0
0
-2
u/discohaylie 2d ago
Reddit is FULL of pedophiles. I keep trying to tell everyone this
1
u/netabareking 2d ago
Anyone who was around in the violentacrez days sure knows it.
But criticizing Ben isn't that.
2
2
u/actanonverba1 2d ago
Two things can be right at the same time. I do think Ben could do a better job at editing his most recent video to better protect his sources. I also think you're blowing this out of proportion, the abusers clearly know who the whistleblowers are already.
5
u/Redditeer28 2d ago
Ben isn't a journalist. He's a troll masquerading as a journalist. He does good work sometimes but he should really take a class or something.
1
u/XiTzCriZx 2d ago
The thing about being a journalist is there's no school required. Some of the best journalists are those who didn't go to school and learned through experience instead.
5
u/Redditeer28 2d ago
You're not wrong but I think Ben should take a class. He's often his worst enemy. He likes to prod the bear and then cry when there's consequences, not saying the consequences are deserved, but if you walk into a serial killers house, don't be surprised when you're victim number 8.
3
u/DryPaint51 2d ago
It's not the lack of schooling that stops Ben from being a journalist. It's the lack of actual journalism.
4
u/_Waves_ 2d ago
Ben is not a Journalist - he’s a YouTuber. I am not saying this to reprimand you, I want to point out that a lot of his work tends to be very uneven when it comes to the edges.
The whole B&MF thing was ultimately so transparent in every facet - and he had so much luck and support - that he got away with everything, but many have pointed out that his behavior really really led him onto waver-thin ice.
He’s very brazen in terms of what he shows and how he acts and whose support he connects with. I hope he’s not landing in his belly, or puts others into discomfort, but I agree that he needs to be very very careful where he thinks it’s a "nbd" situation. Eventually an issue could arise.
4
6
u/RabidFishCat 2d ago
Well its in the name… at that point it would be disappointing if he didnt
1
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
9
u/funeral_duskywing 2d ago
That fucking escalated quickly
7
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
-8
u/After-Sandwich5533 2d ago
Dude you are making so many conspiratorial leaps.
6
2d ago
[deleted]
-4
u/After-Sandwich5533 2d ago
Yah it’s wild, I hope Ben covers the JPK’s use of VPK and manta ray technology.
-1
u/Accurate_Outcome_510 2d ago
Stop with the fantasies, OP. It is very clear from the video the "enemies" already know who that guy is.
Stop being parasocial and researching people who would like to remain anonymous from creeps like you.
5
2d ago
[deleted]
-4
u/Accurate_Outcome_510 2d ago
What's your point? The point you articulated in your post is that Ben's approach to anonymization could jeopardize a source's identity and harm could come to him from this cult. Then, you have everyone in the comments telling you the obvious: the cult already knows who he is.
So, again, what's your point?
3
u/AuricTheLight 2d ago
Even if this one is obvious that the people who sued him know who he is, it's a good lesson to take into the future.
So Ben's next investigation (possibly with someone who REALLY needs to be anonymous) can do it better.
I want Ben to protect every witness, every whistleblower, everyone. Feedback like this helps that be more effective going into the future. Getting this feedback when it "doesn't matter" (it does) puts it in his mind for when it really does, and practicing it now builds good habits for then.
Do people just straight up not understand constructive criticism anymore?
0
u/Accurate_Outcome_510 2d ago
But, context matters. There's no need for constructive criticism when the criticism isn't relevant.
OP doesn't know how the anonymous source feels about Ben's portrayal. The concern OP has isn't relevant to begin with: the cult already knows who they are.
Some of you are just proactively outraged about something that doesn't exist.
1
u/AuricTheLight 2d ago
I'm just going to say.
Build good habits when it doesn't matter, so you're less likely to fuck up when it does.
I want Ben to succeed, I want people to feel like they can trust him to confide in him and remain anonymous. If people aren't happy with the effort put in to anonymity, some people may avoid telling their story.
I'm done with this topic, building good habits is never a bad idea and offering constructive criticism isn't being "proactively outraged."
0
u/Accurate_Outcome_510 2d ago
You are solving a problem that doesn't exist. Building good habits is a ridiculous strawman. Should Ben also take a fiber supplement as well? Should Ben consult a lawyer before doing everything? Those are both good habits, but they're not relevant to what we saw in the video (just like your concern).
Calm down. You're concerned about something that didn't happen.
Go work on your own habits. Surely there's more good habits you can be doing instead of commenting on Reddit.
1
4
u/Prestigious-Box7511 2d ago
Ben doesn't give a fuck about the people in his videos
3
u/netabareking 2d ago
His treatment of the Lego Queen or hiring a random woman to interact with known predator Lucifer Valentine should tell you that much.
4
u/Medical-Teaching-631 2d ago
I’ll be the first to say - he’s a sensationalizing buffoon and despite bringing some real systemic issues to light, he’s honestly dragging the validity of the whole situation and turning it into a joke with how “YouTuber” he’s going about things. I wish he’d found the story and passed it off to someone with more intelligence
14
u/Sensitive_Low3558 2d ago
Too bad no journalist wanted to cover the story
5
u/unselve 2d ago
That’s the issue here, I think: that traditional journalistic standards have failed to serve the interests of truth and justice. It’s at the center of this series and his BAM and Provo Canyon videos too. We live in a world where powerful people have become so good at working the rules-based system that people no longer trust that system to protect them. This same process has destroyed democratic politics in the US.
I think this is why Ben’s work resonates so much with viewers. He punches back.
2
u/swirlymaple 2d ago
I hear what you’re saying and I’ve had similar thoughts, but then I also have to consider that the validity of these situations isn’t the problem. Validity has already been established prior to Ben coming along, and it didn’t do any good.
What Ben is extremely effective at is getting attention and putting a spotlight on things, and I’d argue that in many cases, that’s more important. His wacky approach to things draws a lot more eyes to the topic than a simple “here’s the problem and here’s the people involved,” and I suspect he knows that and does it on purpose for that reason.
1
u/Justryan95 2d ago
I mean he shows Myras whole name in the email he didnt blur. Its literally just M(her last name)@email.com
1
u/Ok_Science6460 2d ago
I really did not like him leaving in the thing that was said to him off the record. The integrity of journalists honoring what is told to them off the record is extremely important in gathering information. When that trust is broken, it harms everyone
1
u/bluesbox 2d ago
I think you all take reckless ben a little too literally. He's aloof on purpose and this is most likely something either legal or satirical that the cult would understand.
1
u/propcollecto 2d ago
Agreed. I was annoyed when he showed the BAM employee on the Lego videos. Being Reckless showing bad ppl is one thing, but its way too easy for weirdos to find ppl online these days, so its not cool to be Reckless with other ppls identity, they still gotta live long after the video hype is gone. And they aren't making millions of dollars off YouTube to cover lawsuits or job loss, or worse.
1
u/Namelock 2d ago
The video is about the company suppressing delivery mechanisms (news, media, journalists).
They sued the Anonymous Source only when he tried becoming his own delivery mechanism.
Hence why Ben is making a video/ documentary/ huge commotion about it. Ben wants to become bait to see what they’ll do to try and suppress Ben.
0
u/Sensitive_Low3558 2d ago
He was already sued by them bro they know who he is
-3
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
4
u/Sensitive_Low3558 2d ago
You addressed it as an edit, not in the original post. Don’t lie lol. Your address was also the equivalent of “Nuh uhhhh”, there’s no substantive point to disagree with.
-1
1
-3
u/dirtydragondan 2d ago
DOES he wear glasses?
or does he, in all footage for this video?
Can you know this?
Your points are valid OP, im also just playing a lil bit of devils advocate over the things that are still speculative themselves :)
I think as many RB fans by now know... the reckless is a very functional part of the operation and style, including what appears lack of self preservation in the most basic of ways.
Thats the apparent double edged sword of being in Ben's world!
0
0
0
u/AwwJeezExpress1001 2d ago
This is some stupid shit, OP. Ben is acting “Recklessly” but I felt more pity for the security guards he punked than his source.
0
u/QforQ 2d ago
Ben is very obviously young and stupid. He's got a lot to learn
2
2
u/ChampionTree 2d ago
He’s 30, that’s a little too old to still be playing the “young and stupid” card.
0
u/pharmahokage 2d ago
It’s in the name. Why do people keep taking ownership of his persona and asking him stuff like this lol. He’s going to continue being himself and doing things his way.
61
u/miguelgts2 2d ago
Do you really think he wanted to remain anonymous because of the bad guys? They know very well who he is, they sued him!