Public accusations beget public discussions. There is nothing surprising about that. > Let's be fair here, defending the accused inherently means you're callin

Public accusations beget public discussions. There is nothing surprising about that. > Let's be fair here, defending the accused inherently means you're calling the victim(s) liars, especially this early in the event cycle. You're immediately assuming the accusers are lying for personal gain. You're being biased. I can't speak for whatever else you've read, but the comment you're replying to is very general and does not defend anyone or calls anyone a liar. It does sounds skeptical. There is a big difference. In the age of media meta-narratives, social justice crusades and Twitter attack campaigns presumption of innocence is the only sensible attitude to have. > I don't see anyone leaping to defend Nest's CEO for his alleged instances of abuse. People should be skeptical about those accusations as well. Any large company has begrudged employees. That's obvious. It's also pretty obvious that the public is biased against CEOs of large companies. So what's your point? You're saying that the same biases should be expanded to other groups?