6 ms·
Burning Man sexual harassment accusation leads to resignation of Alphabet exec
- warent 8y agoApparently he deleted his Twitter account as well. https://twitter.com/rdevaul https://twitter.com/rdevaul
- thrower123 8y agoHoly Harambe, I'd be careful about browsing sfgate without a heavy duty ad-blocker in place. UBlock Origin is just reeling off blocked requests on this article - by the time I finished the counter is up to 25k. I snuck a peak with my protection off in incognito mode, and I haven't seen a page blasted with such ads and autoplays and other shit in a very long time.
- owlninja 8y agoI am normally not a fan of HN comments about the website and not the story, but this site is horrendous! Try anything else: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/technology/alphabet-executive-sexual-harassment-resigns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/technology/alphabet-execu...
- samfriedman 8y agoThe SFGate article is a literal reposting of that NYTimes story, and they state as such by the bottom. I think the link should be updated to point to the Times in this case.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoA more readable version through outline.com : https://outline.com/FPRXCb https://outline.com/FPRXCb Its my go to web site to view an ad infested site like that.
- olliej 8y agoIt’s not an accusation - he literally admitted he did it, and just labeled it as a “poor judgement” moment. It is unclear if he thinks the poor judgement was harassment, or thinking he could get away with it.
- newnewpdro 8y agoOr deciding to take the drug cocktail he was probably on at the time, considering the assault took place at Burning Man.
- tosser0001 8y agoReading the article he claims that she had interviewed but was not hired, he assumed she knew she wasn't hired, and so presumably, in his mind at the time, his sexual advance was not on a potential employee. There's no evidence in the article indicating how much any of this is true.
- detaro 8y agoduplicate of at least https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18347386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18347386
- ravenstine 8y agoSorry to make an off-topic comment, but the SFGate website is insufferable. There's about 3 videos playing at once, one of which I think is an ad, a dynamically loaded chum box, a subscribe-now modal that navigated me away even when I clicked the X, and it the page is clearly redrawing too often since scrolling and highlighting seems jumpy.
- olivermarks 8y agoSo no 90 million employee payoff for this mid ranking fellow then? I know nothing of the case but this feels like another 'I was at a party two years ago and someone made an unwanted advance' allegation. Did the accuser subsequently join Google? Was her job competitive to the accused and was he inappropriate at work after this alleged event? Given Google being conceived and founded at Burning Man and their founders 'interesting' relationships with partners running Youtube etc the whole premise of HR decisions based on allegations appears to be very one sided towards any accuser.
- aylmao 8y agoThe article says it: > He said that X decided not to hire Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed. Also, the guy admitted it was "an error of judgement". When the accused admits he was wrong, I don't think it's an "accusation" as much as a fact.
- olivermarks 8y agoRight, but is X subsequently a Google employee anyway? My concern is how vulnerable the average male is to being fired for making past unwanted passes/propositions at women. In many cases this may well be merited if the guy is jerk - and this may be the case here - but in many other instances this seems all to easy to abuse from an accusing perspective
- aylmao 8y agoWe're all vulnerable to smear and false accusations. Anyone could claim right now that you sold company secrets to a competitor, yet we don't worry about that because most people are not liars or jerks and would face repercussions themselves if proven wrong.
- olivermarks 8y ago'we don't worry about that because most people are not liars or jerks and would face repercussions themselves if proven wrong.' ...you would hope, yes.
- romed 8y agoWhy are these people always readily identifiable? You can’t trust anyone who wears a sports jacket and sneakers.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y agoIsn't using Burning Man for networking and for discussion of business in itself problematic, as it excludes a significant (majority?) of the population that would prefer to avoid going to alcohol/drug/sex fueled parties?
- ChuckMcM 8y agoBurning man, golf courses, bdsm parties, bridge games, yes all are problematic when they are "where business gets done." I have called out inappropriate venues for deciding workplace things in the past, my experience is that the person who arranged the situation understands it is inappropriate and they either don't care, or they want it that way.
- jandrese 8y agoOf all of the places where you shouldn't discuss business, Burning Man is near the top. The whole situation is weird. The victim applied for a position and was rejected. A week later she finds the guy who rejected her at Burning Man (on accident?) and he apparently gets the wrong idea about why she is there. It's pretty clear the guy needs to leave his job regardless if he was willing to reconsider her application if she took him up on the offer. Google doesn't need a casting couch manager.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoI completely agree, I was just responding to the GP comment not the story as a whole.
- naasking 8y agoYou haven't explained why they should care. As long as all participants agree to the venue, then what's the problem?
- ChuckMcM 8y agoYou will select against any participants who aren't interested or willing to meet you at the venue.