4 ms·
You're making the assumption that Holmes wronged "commoners" with malicious intent. As far as anyone can tell, this is just an allegation. So either: 1. you ha
by babarock 5y ago
You're making the assumption that Holmes wronged "commoners" with malicious intent. As far as anyone can tell, this is just an allegation. So either:
1. you have incredible insight into the inner workings of the company.
2. you're joining an online pitchforking mob.
As much as I rejoice seeing a Silicon Valley poster child be exposed as a phony and a fraud, I would be very careful before jumping to conclusions and asserting with high confidence that the court verdict is flawed.
- cies 5y ago> You're making the assumption that Holmes wronged "commoners" with malicious intent. Nope. I take from the text that prosecutors-and-or-law-itself defend the interests of super rich better than the interests/well-being of commoners. > I would be very careful before jumping to conclusions and asserting with high confidence that the court verdict is flawed. Good for you. I'm not saying it is flawed, neither am I passing judgement on who's guilty... I'm saying it seems the whole system is favoring the some over others.