4 ms·

(I'm a little concerned this may be too outspoken for my own good, but here goes..) The first two stories at the start are horrible. Why are they being anonymi

(I'm a little concerned this may be too outspoken for my own good, but here goes..) The first two stories at the start are horrible. Why are they being anonymized? She should just reveal identities (and compromising photos/emails) and make an example of them. I know people are afraid of seeming like trouble-makers. Silicon valley can seem awfully small. But you know what, it can also be small for investors. Certain kinds of behavior are so unambiguously bad that with documentary proof nobody should (would?) fault the whistleblower. To do otherwise is to abet sexism. (The third is obviously not interested in funding her. Who knows why. Just post to thefunded or something.)

gabrielroth 17y ago
Even if the source told the reporter the names, all she's got is her word, and that's not enough evidence for the New York Times to print something like that. (And for good reason: it shouldn't be possible to smear someone without evidence, not to mention that the paper would be vulnerable to a libel suit.) You mention 'documentary proof,' but there's no suggestion in the story that she has any. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that she's not telling the truth -- just that reasonable journalistic standards sometimes result in important information being withheld.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  "Even if the source told the reporter the names, all she's got is her word," and maybe a photo of a naked guy on a boat.
  - gabrielroth 17y ago
    "Another potential backer invited her for a weekend yachting excursion by showing her a picture of himself on the boat — without clothes." [emphasis mine] Sounds like the creep was smart enough not to give her the picture.
- akkartik 17y ago
  I'm willing to bet the anonymization isn't coming from the journalist. In general, victims should just post/tweet charges under their real names. The internet will pick it up, link to it, retweet it. Even journalists will give it press as 'alleged charges'. That it's not anonymous will give it weight.
crux_ 17y ago
I'd say they're anonymized not because they are horrible, but because they are probably rather typical. Look at your own post: the culture here in startup-land is so vehemently anti-anti-sexist* that you feel a need to express worries (however tongue-in-cheek) about retaliation. * Yes, this is an odd double negative, but also the best way I can think of to express the phenomenon. It's also not the same thing as sexism, but it sure does create an extremely friendly environment for bigots.
- akkartik 17y ago
  "they're anonymized not because they are horrible, but because they are probably rather typical." Why's that reason to anonymize? Racism was typical once. You have to start somewhere. Or are you claiming there's too many such un-anonymized stories in the media? I don't see that. "the culture here in startup-land is so vehemently anti-anti-sexist that you feel a need to express worries about retaliation." I was describing the consequences whistleblowers have to deal with in general. It's good for the potential consequences to exist; they prevent frivolous charges and increase the impact when a real whistleblower comes forward risking such stigma. None of this has anything to do with sexism in particular.
  - crux_ 17y ago
    The bit about retaliation was in regards to "(I'm a little concerned this may be too outspoken for my own good, but here goes..)" -- not the body of your comment. "Why's that reason to anonymize?" Giving their names makes the story about a couple of exceptionally bad eggs; omitting their identities makes the story about a broad trend.
    - akkartik 17y ago
      Fair point. I still think she should publicize their names, but the NYTimes shouldn't include them. Even if you're responding to my parenthetical first sentence, I don't see how that has anything to do with 'anti-anti-sexism'. I was just articulating the concern anybody should have for seeming like a troublemaker. There's a fine distinction between being outspoken and a troublemaker. The latter is just looking for a reason to seem outspoken - a distracting influence at a startup.

gabrielroth 17y ago

Even if the source told the reporter the names, all she's got is her word, and that's not enough evidence for the New York Times to print something like that. (And for good reason: it shouldn't be possible to smear someone without evidence, not to mention that the paper would be vulnerable to a libel suit.) You mention 'documentary proof,' but there's no suggestion in the story that she has any. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that she's not telling the truth -- just that reasonable journalistic standards sometimes result in important information being withheld.

jimbokun 17y ago
"Even if the source told the reporter the names, all she's got is her word," and maybe a photo of a naked guy on a boat.
- gabrielroth 17y ago
  "Another potential backer invited her for a weekend yachting excursion by showing her a picture of himself on the boat — without clothes." [emphasis mine] Sounds like the creep was smart enough not to give her the picture.
akkartik 17y ago
I'm willing to bet the anonymization isn't coming from the journalist. In general, victims should just post/tweet charges under their real names. The internet will pick it up, link to it, retweet it. Even journalists will give it press as 'alleged charges'. That it's not anonymous will give it weight.

crux_ 17y ago

I'd say they're anonymized not because they are horrible, but because they are probably rather typical. Look at your own post: the culture here in startup-land is so vehemently anti-anti-sexist* that you feel a need to express worries (however tongue-in-cheek) about retaliation. * Yes, this is an odd double negative, but also the best way I can think of to express the phenomenon. It's also not the same thing as sexism, but it sure does create an extremely friendly environment for bigots.

akkartik 17y ago
"they're anonymized not because they are horrible, but because they are probably rather typical." Why's that reason to anonymize? Racism was typical once. You have to start somewhere. Or are you claiming there's too many such un-anonymized stories in the media? I don't see that. "the culture here in startup-land is so vehemently anti-anti-sexist that you feel a need to express worries about retaliation." I was describing the consequences whistleblowers have to deal with in general. It's good for the potential consequences to exist; they prevent frivolous charges and increase the impact when a real whistleblower comes forward risking such stigma. None of this has anything to do with sexism in particular.
- crux_ 17y ago
  The bit about retaliation was in regards to "(I'm a little concerned this may be too outspoken for my own good, but here goes..)" -- not the body of your comment. "Why's that reason to anonymize?" Giving their names makes the story about a couple of exceptionally bad eggs; omitting their identities makes the story about a broad trend.
  - akkartik 17y ago
    Fair point. I still think she should publicize their names, but the NYTimes shouldn't include them. Even if you're responding to my parenthetical first sentence, I don't see how that has anything to do with 'anti-anti-sexism'. I was just articulating the concern anybody should have for seeming like a troublemaker. There's a fine distinction between being outspoken and a troublemaker. The latter is just looking for a reason to seem outspoken - a distracting influence at a startup.