4 ms·

Koum himself issued a statement; Bloomberg and others were simply following up on it. Posting the court documents is standard Bloomberg operating procedure (th

Koum himself issued a statement; Bloomberg and others were simply following up on it. Posting the court documents is standard Bloomberg operating procedure (they do that for nearly every story the write), though you're right, it may have been uncalled for in this case. But given that Koum himself chose to come forward with a statement, it wasn't exactly yellow journalism for them to write about it.

downandout 12y ago
Koum issued the statement as a result of the story. No story, no statement. He didn't come out of the blue and say "hey everyone, 18 years ago - as a teenager - I had a restraining order and now that I'm a billionaire I thought everyone should know. Yep, I want everyone thinking that I am a creep. I'm sending the court documents to Bloomberg to post for all to see as I type this.". They gave him a chance to respond to the story that they were going to publish anyway, and he got in front of it by responding. They knew that if they didn't publish it the way they did, it would make them look far worse. No one should have to explain 18 year old conduct that resulted in absolutely no arrest or criminal charges and took place when they were 19 years old. It's called a smear campaign. Oh and the high-minded reason they did it? Maybe they were fighting for women's rights? Nope. It was so that they could get a few clicks on their ads. It's the TMZ strategy. It's base, classless nonsense. If there is a single false or inaccurate word in that story, I hope he sends a phalanx of lawyers to go in and sue them into the stone age.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  No one should have to explain 18 year old conduct that resulted in absolutely no arrest or criminal charges and took place when they were 19 years old. Depends on the conduct. What's important is that (extreme) suffering was caused by his actions. Not that the victim chose not to deepen their suffering by asking for a criminal investigation. Or that the local statutes may have simply been too vague at the time to offer any further protection. As to the other stuff you're saying: either you have some direct knowledge, which we do not, of both the event chronology behind the various journalistic investigations (several outlets were working on the story, not just Bloomberg) and the internal motivations of those involved -- or you're indulging in speculation, here. Either way, I don't have an answer to it.

downandout 12y ago

Koum issued the statement as a result of the story. No story, no statement. He didn't come out of the blue and say "hey everyone, 18 years ago - as a teenager - I had a restraining order and now that I'm a billionaire I thought everyone should know. Yep, I want everyone thinking that I am a creep. I'm sending the court documents to Bloomberg to post for all to see as I type this.". They gave him a chance to respond to the story that they were going to publish anyway, and he got in front of it by responding. They knew that if they didn't publish it the way they did, it would make them look far worse. No one should have to explain 18 year old conduct that resulted in absolutely no arrest or criminal charges and took place when they were 19 years old. It's called a smear campaign. Oh and the high-minded reason they did it? Maybe they were fighting for women's rights? Nope. It was so that they could get a few clicks on their ads. It's the TMZ strategy. It's base, classless nonsense. If there is a single false or inaccurate word in that story, I hope he sends a phalanx of lawyers to go in and sue them into the stone age.

dreamweapon 12y ago
No one should have to explain 18 year old conduct that resulted in absolutely no arrest or criminal charges and took place when they were 19 years old. Depends on the conduct. What's important is that (extreme) suffering was caused by his actions. Not that the victim chose not to deepen their suffering by asking for a criminal investigation. Or that the local statutes may have simply been too vague at the time to offer any further protection. As to the other stuff you're saying: either you have some direct knowledge, which we do not, of both the event chronology behind the various journalistic investigations (several outlets were working on the story, not just Bloomberg) and the internal motivations of those involved -- or you're indulging in speculation, here. Either way, I don't have an answer to it.