2 ms·
Without substantiation of any of these types of things occurring, it actively destroys discussion to engage in speculation of them, particularly online. People
by grzm 10y ago
Without substantiation of any of these types of things occurring, it actively destroys discussion to engage in speculation of them, particularly online. People are left with no good faith upon which to have constructive discourse.
- dowjones 10y agoI agree with you. Which is why the entire Susan Fowler discussion and subsequent holier-than-thou proclamations (i.e. Mitch Kapor) are odious, since there is currently zero substantiation of any of her claims.
- grzm 10y agoby "types of things" I mean speculation of shillage/astroturfing as to discussions on HN, not the content of the articles themselves. Those are two different issues, and to conflate them means we can't discuss them at all.
- staticautomatic 10y agoWho can be relied upon to substantiate her claims (particularly if there is no lawsuit) ? Surely not Uber itself or its so called independent advisors.
- dowjones 10y agoShe claims to have screenshots of everything, so she could substantiate them. But you've pointed out the impossible position Uber is in... what if her claims are false, or exaggerated? How would the company disprove a negative? How could they show that she was never propositioned for sex, if in fact she wasn't? What if federal and state laws, and/or internal privacy policies, prevent the company from publicly releasing communication that would clarify things?
- jacquesm 10y agoTo see this coming from a novelty account is hilarious.