[IIAOPSW]

I'll give you a read.

If you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend the Knapp Commission Report. Its about police corruption in New York City in 1972, but its lessons on systemic and institutionalized corruption are highly transferable to other contexts.

Probably the most common naive mistake I see is people thinking their subfield is special and they are the first to really notice / understand fraud within it. I've certainly seen people in the "sleuth community" (scientific fraud whistle blowers) reinvent the wheel a few times.

All fraud is basically the same. Financial, scientific, police corruption...it almost doesn't matter. I'm not even the first to say this. A really good summary can be found in Ashforth 2003 ("The Normalization of Corruption in Organizations").

So, with the caveat that I haven't read your work yet and maybe you already know, I'd say look at past corruption far outside your area of interest / expertise. There's a lot you can learn there. Police corruption reports are usually great because of how accessible they are in several senses (more numerous, usually simple to understand), but I have no police related agenda to push here and it really doesn't matter where you decide to look. Just pick any Commission and read their findings.

In the opening words of the Knapp Commission "We found corruption to be widespread".

[laszlojamf]

gotta love HN. Top comment on an AMA with an author who's actually written books is "Here is a book you should read".

[figmert]

I don't understand what's wrong with someone suggesting a book to an author? Do you think all authors have read all other books?

If you had pointed out the original commenter's patronizing comment, as if they with 100% certainty know better than the author who has just written a book about said topic (at least the commenter thinks so), then I'd have agreed with you.

[wavemode]

Gotta love HN. A commenter does literally nothing other than recommend a book and the top reply is "don't recommend books to him - he's written books, don't you know that?"

[unholiness]

TBF I think it's just a remark on the upvotes. It's a perfectly cromulent comment with no business being at the top of an AMA.

[recursivegirth]

Gotta love HN. You can't just have a thread without a psycho-analysis on how people interact with each other on a social media website.

[aklemm]

Right, and it's quite possibly not even very relevant to the book.

[eries]

Thanks for the suggestion

[tonymet]

Why did things worsen afterward ?

[IIAOPSW]

For the most part it didn't, but to the extent it did, the answer is in the later Mollen Commission Report.

[davidgrenier]

I think he's talking about company enshittification because of marke pressure, and not direct fraud though I haven't read the book.