> One of the authors of this post believed every first-person allegation of abuse and assault by Jacob Appelbaum – including the anonymous ones – immediately. W

> One of the authors of this post believed every first-person allegation of abuse and assault by Jacob Appelbaum – including the anonymous ones – immediately. Why? Among many other signs, she saw him break different, smaller rules in a way that showed his complete and total disregard for other people’s time, work, and feelings – and everyone supported him doing so. For example, she once attended a series of five minute lightning talks at the Noisebridge hackerspace, where speakers sign up in advance. Jacob arrived unannounced and jumped in after the first couple of talks with a forty-five minute long boring rambling slideshow about a recent trip he took. The person running the talks – someone with considerable power and influence in the same community – rolled his eyes but let Jacob talk for nine times the length of other speakers. The message was clear: rules don’t apply to Jacob, and even powerful people were afraid to cross him. This is a really dangerous line of thinking. Just because someone is a "jerk" does not mean that they're a criminal and the burden of proof for accusations goes out the window. This whole post, and the site it links to reeks of vigilantism. If he really did do the things he's accused of (I've never heard of Jacob before so can't comment), he should be dealt with by the proper authorities. It's not up to employers to act as judge, jury and executioners. I would also add that people who engage in these types of public witch hunts and calls for codes of conduct, new rules... are very much showing signs of the narcissism they claim to be against.