DOGE was headhunting me late July through end of December.
Their recruiters are all anonymous when they reach out as they do not provide their names. I constantly questioned to myself and them directly if they were legit even if their email address showed as RecruitingUSDS@doge.eop.gov (their public email address seen on USDS). The first recruiter I demanded a video call with and asked him to bob and weave his head (lol). He never gave me his last name (all his emails came from that public address and they signed their emails with first name only) but I found him on Linkedin. He was late 20s to late 30s. From there I was asked to do/turned in a case study and after the govt shutdown I was invited to interview with a DOGE employee whom then her email showed her full name. I didnt make it past her as there was another step in their process which is an in person interview at USDS's office or within another govt agency DOGE working at.
Not like the current admin and AI companies are helping with that at all. Also, anyone in that department has brought great harm to the entire country and their employment should be public knowledge.
There are two stories here. One is the alleged wrongdoing. The second is the fact that the Washington Post has a name of a former DOGE employee. I'm far more interested in the second story than the first.
Asking for a list of all DOGE employees is different than asking for the name of the single accused employee. It wouldn't make any sense for the media to publish a list of every DOGE employee in the context of this story.
If the Post named you as someone who did something, and you didn't do that thing, and that thing harmed you in some way, you would sue them. That would cost the Post money, and they obviously don't want to spend money on anything that their staff does.
But we are in the USA, where the majority of convicted criminals were never proven guilty because the system relies on coercing them into not going to trial.
Which is one reason why the legacy news media is disregarded/disrespected by the general public. People have caught into the games that they play such as trying to paint people as pre convicted
The court filing provides more information than just giving ammo to harassers so I do not see them as directly equivalent. I also do not agree with the premise that if one person does something bad it would justify someone else in doing so.
Plus - you’re telling me that highlighting an individual and posting their home address on an official government account is not “giving ammo to harassers”?
Why not? Shouldn't the public be allowed to learn who all the DOGE employees were? Federal employees are public record, are they not?