The accusations can be true, and at the same time it seems possible that the VC didn't take advantage of his "position of power", but genuinely believed the women liked him for his looks and personality, not because they needed his money.
What makes you think that the women liked him, or that he thought they liked him? They were pitching to him, that's a business transaction. He himself said he leveraged a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, and the linked article mentions groping and harassment with unwanted sexual propositions.
Now the question is, what motivates you to seek out a relatively far-fetched justification for this man's possible innocence?
Perhaps they see a trend of knee-jerk reactions to these kinds of cases where the defendant is presumed guilty before the entire story or evidence is out, or before any sort of due process occurs. I can see why someone would at least try, even weakly, to counteract this type of community pressure.
I realize this isn't a legal matter at this point but I'm speaking of the principle(s) on which those features are based.
It almost always seems to become a case of "you're either with us or you're against us," so let's try to steer clear of that.
In this case, I agree in the sense it defeats the point I made above, but for various reasons others may continue to push back on that pressure on principal rather than on the facts of the matter.
> Now the question is, what motivates you to seek out a relatively far-fetched justification for this man's possible innocence?
You're implying he supports sexual harassment.
He's bringing up a perfectly valid question for discussion: what if the person has an outsized opinion of his attractiveness, and also happens to be a VC -- is that still sexual harassment or just stupidity?
Well, the answer is that in this case it's still harassment.
And so now there's question, answer, discussion, etc. No need to accuse the poster of being complicit himself in harassment.
That's a legit question (especially out of curiosity) but one that takes a surprising amount of energy to answer precisely. I might be able to do that tomorrow, but in the meantime here are some answers in the same vein. It's all the same principle, but the details vary.
I haven't read this thread yet but I'm curious why the downvote mechanism isn't sufficient moderation in a case like this.
HN has been a superb place for discussion of issues relating to workplace harassment and it seems that having certain ideas forbidden is likely to harm the discussion.
It's because comments can have troll effects even when they're downvoted or flagged.
There's a difference between expressing a view and setting this place on fire. There's no view that can't be expressed substantively and thoughtfully if one has a mind to, but it takes work. Throwing fuel on the fire or sand in the gears is different; that's vandalism, and it destroys the free exchange of views by ruining the container—the community and site—that supports it. The container is fragile and needs protecting.
People mostly do this without realizing how destructive it is. Dealing with it requires moderators whose role is to protect the commons. That's how HN still exists as a place for (hopefully) thoughtful discussion. We'll never all agree about where to draw the line every time, but that's secondary to the point that someone needs to.
A comment crosses into trolling when it does things that are known to ruin thoughtful discussion, intentionally or not. I chided the commenter upthread because they were going much further than merely (say) arguing against a rush to judgment about the OP—they were signalling bad faith with polemical swipes (e.g. 'Your prejudice that in general, "men are pigs"'). That is not thoughtful discussion, it's destructive of it.
When we ask commenters not to do this, reactions vary. Some react by taking responsibility and learn how not to produce such effects in online conversation. Many HN users have gone through that process. I had to go through it myself (it took years); I used to optimize for snark and venting too as much as the next person. If HN has anything superb about it, to use your word, it's because of the community members who do this work.
Other commenters prefer melodrama. They proclaim they're being 'censored' for their 'unpopular opinions' by mods who 'can't handle the truth', then storm out the front door with an 'enjoy your circlejerk' or two. (Typically they then walk around the building, come back in and start over with a new account.) This is the 'help help I'm being repressed' phase of the internet cycle of life. It will never go way, but I'm confident that most neutral readers notice the same signs of bad faith that mods were reacting to. How do I know that? Because otherwise our job would be impossible.
In the end the root distinction isn't about what view a commenter has on this or that topic, it's the difference between users who comment with care for the whole and those who don't. Sometimes that's because they're so agitated that they lack the self-control to do anything other than toss a hot potato into the thread. (It happens to everyone.) But often it's just that they haven't yet learned about this dynamic and why it matters. Once somebody gets that, they're motivated to participate in the community quite differently—but it isn't a question of changing their views, becoming more 'conformist' or 'groupthink' or any of that sort of thing people say. It's more akin to not littering in a city park, or to taking good care of a campsite.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think that depending on which stories on HN one choose to read, the community may feel entirely different. I think I'm lucky that for the most part the stories I read attract high quality comments.
The two topics I enjoy which are continually controversial are the "Russian Hacking" story and stories about Wikileaks. Wikileaks has been an interest for many HN readers for years, and so it's interesting to see how recent events have created political polarization where none existed before.
I've noticed that some users will use the tactic of shaming to try to make a point in a discussion. It's hard to describe this, but it's much more like the sort of comments one finds in other discussion fora than what is typically found on HN. Politics brings these out, yet I would be very disappointed if political topics were discouraged on HN, since political ideas and participation are an important part of citizenship and community. And it may take the sort of retort one would get on HN to break someone out of a lazy "comfort zone" belief that they hold simply because it's popular.
Thanks for your efforts moderating, I know it is a thankless duty, but your comment makes me realize that there are likely threads that I don't participate in which get much worse.
That makes sense and I appreciate the thoughtful response. The one thing I'd say is that it seems like those types of comments tend to be accepted as long as they align with popular opinion around here. Snark and polemical swipes (I had to Google "polemical" :D) seem to be fairly common. It's understandable - it's difficult to see bad faith when the message is agreeable. It'd be pretty easy to pick out comments in this discussion that align with popular opinion, have a similar tone to anothercomment's, but are unmoderated. Being more lenient on "agreeable trolling" has just as much of a destructive effect and reinforces echo chambers.
People have differing perceptions of 'popular opinion' and read the same comments differently depending on their pre-existing opinions. Even perfectly even-handed moderation would routinely be accused of bias because most such perceptions are in the eye of the beholder.
To my mind, the price of admission into a serious conversation about this is some awareness of how prevalent these biases are, including in one's own case. They determine nearly everything. Mostly all we really think is "what I like is good, what I dislike is bad, and others are good or bad to the extent that they agree". That goes along with "I'm a noble freethinker nobly standing apart from this groupthink echo chamber" and the associated, "You should moderate this forum to defend those I agree with and smite those I disagree with." These feelings are so compelling that it's hard to wriggle into any freedom from them. One should make the effort anyhow. People who make that effort start to see the problem differently, even as we all retain our biases.
There are many counterintuitive aspects to this. One is that community cohesion remains an issue even when 'popular opinion' (assuming it exists and you know what it is) is wrong. There are ways of disputing popular opinion that cause harm even when they're right; it isn't a simple matter of just 'stating the unpopular truth' (assuming it exists and you know what it is) and then lording it over or angrily lashing out at those who 'can't handle it'. You actually have a greater responsibility by virtue of the fact that you know, or believe you know, more truth. Most people who fancy themselves to be expressing an unpopular truth don't take that responsibility—on the contrary, they use that truth as a weapon, to vent grievances, gain status, and so on. This harms discussion and community even if you are right about both popular opinion and the truth. Indeed, it does more harm the more right you are, because then you're discrediting the truth with your behavior and gifting the majority with an easy excuse to keep rejecting the minority view.
The commenter probably meant to say "enjoy your circle-jerking effect" ... :) Because it's the effect that they care about ... notice how silly that sounds, while not really effectively communicating, instead just getting your hairs up a little (maybe).
For the record, I don't agree with that commenter's opinion. And I also believe your actions on these moderation issues are well-intended (plus you're doing a great job, probably especially on the invisible parts, kudos).
But for all the talk about not throwing oil on the fire, maybe it's smart if you then also refrain from calling people "trolls" or "trolling" when they're not intentionally doing so. To use your words, it signals bad faith. Especially if you consider that such a person is probably in a bad or angry mood[0].
In fact, I don't think "trolling effect" is a very good term to use either. That's probably because I carry a sort of romantic idea about my dealings advanced and skilled trolls. Similar to how many people here feel about the term "hacker". Yes there exist criminal hackers, just like there exist mentally insane unstable bad evil trolls. But there are also performance artists[1], or you know, memetic/social hackers. Still not always good, and almost never welcome. They can use their eristic skills to make stuck up people lose face and/or their shit. They can bring to light collective hypocrisy by placing a very careful wedge in a community. Same reasons we need comedy, satire or jesters. Or just cause a scene for the art of it. If they wanted to, they could "set this place on fire" without snark, polemic or even knowing it was them that caused someone else to push a button and whoooommff.
Just like you don't call someone who steals your USB-stick a "hacker" but a "thief", someone who uses polemic swipes and snark because they angrily voice an unpopular opinion on HN, is not (necessarily) a troll. And to them it comes across as if you're just calling them names, which does not create listeners.
Just call it what it is. The "trolling effects" you talk about have a proper word actually, and are called "flame wars". Even better would be if you'd take some of the well-worded snippets from your post above (and possibly previous ones), for copy-pasting the relevant bits, because well it's not really more than about five typical situations on HN, is it?
Since you want to affect this person's behaviour, it helps to be specific, instead of using a catch-all term like "trolling". Pointing out "snark" and "polemic swipes" apply in this case, because that's undeniable and you can quote the words. Calling it "signalling bad faith" is a very bad idea for hopefully obvious reasons[2].
Finally, about your last paragraph. Of course you don't want conformist groupthink either. But just like the so-called "troll", your intentions may not line up with what effects you're causing. Depending on how carefully you tread, you may in fact be inciting groupthink, and ironically this attracts (proper) trolls because they love poking that kind of self-assuredness.
[0] often unrelated stress, but triggered on subjects they feel strongly about--I get this myself as well, but I usually manage to write such words in a textfile, that I keep in a very private very angry folder somewhere (throwing away the vitriol is less cathartic to me, and sometimes there's some useful eloquent bits that come in useful at a calmer moment).
[1] still not welcome here on HN, which I understand, but more for the same reasons why reddit-style pun-threads are not welcome here either.
[2] Because (especially in their eyes) they could say the same about you. Also snark and polemic swipes seem to be called out a lot more consistently when it involves "unpopular opinions on HN" (which exist), I notice this myself, even though I strongly oppose most of these unpopular opinions. And that, by itself, can in fact be considered quite rightly as signalling bad faith. So take care.
You seem very passionate about defending alleged harassers. I just wonder what fuels that. Perhaps you think these events are not that bad, or some degree of inappropriate behaviour is ok?
It seems to me that accusations of harassment can be as damaging as harassment itself, and that the presumption of innocence applies to both (or all) parties.
This comment is a microcosm of 'ddoolin's point. Step back and read it a few times, and think about what you're saying: you've presented an alternative view from my own, so sexual harassment must be acceptable to you.
I agree my reply was not helpful, but there was a point I was trying to make:
Sometimes people who are keen to defend harassers might do so because they exhibit similar behaviours themselves or hold similar beliefs and want to defend themselves.
Here is an example from this very story: Caldbeck tweeted in support of Uber: "Also mob mentality w @Uber right now. Guilty before proven innocent on everything".
I genuinely think it's worth self-examining one's motivations if someone's first instinct is to defend the man in such a case. I say this without trying to accuse anyone, sexism is subtle and affects everyone, and it's through self examination that we can grow and improve.
> I genuinely think it's worth self-examining one's motivations if someone's first instinct is to defend the man in such a case.
Why do you assume it was his (or her?) first instinct? This HN thread has already well-established that Caldbeck's behavior is repugnant. Do we need every single poster to +1, or can people propose questions for discussion without being accused of being part of the problem?
I'm aware of the point you were trying to make; it was what spawned my comment, because it is wrong. Adding words to it makes me agree less, not more. You're basically saying anybody who lobbies for not persecuting someone based on allegations must be sympathetic to the allegations, in every case, and you cite going through Twitter as if you're compiling oppo to make your point. If you don't see the danger in that line of thought, or how it makes you complicit in mob-style behavior when the incentives line up, I'm not sure how best to show you.
Ad hominem being acceptable on a few pet issues is a value system I've noticed that many people, including you, have. I would ask why. I've had this turned on me, too, hence why I'm not surprised; I'm reminded of defense lawyers who receive death threats and actual violence, as well.
"Everything" hasn't become sexual harassment. I've dated coworkers. I have been rebuffed by coworkers. I have even been under the impression that a coworker might be into me who was not. And--somehow--I have not been accused of sexual harassment. Maybe because I am respectful in my approach, cut it out if it's not appreciated, and never persist past being rebuffed.
The "misunderstandings" about which you wring your hands are weaponized against women in the spirit of "don't be hysterical". You're not being moderate when you express viewpoints like this. You're just rationalizing bad shit. And, judging from your sterling work throughout this thread, you know it, too.
>> The accusations can be true, and at the same time it seems possible that the VC didn't take advantage of his "position of power", but genuinely believed the women liked him for his looks and personality, not because they needed his money.
This type of behavior is about boundaries. Boundaries are about power.
His behavior crossed what our culture generally says are the boundaries of a professional situation. That's what makes it inappropriate; it doesn't matter what he believed.
It's totally acceptable to meet someone in a social situation and, after a bit of due diligence, it's totally acceptable to ask them out.
People date in the workplace all the time, so I don't think your rules about "professional situations" are generally accepted.
I also reject the notion of "position of power" just because he is a VC. Nobody is forced to take his money. You could just as well say the applying women are in a position of power because the VC desperately needs somebody to invest in. I guess a startup should avoid seeking investments where the investor is "in a position of power", anyway.
I am also not justifying his behavior, obviously he made mistakes. But I reject the immediate interpretation of "man abusing his power to pressure women into sex".
The "boundaries" talk is also not really helpful - at some point, somebody has to make a move. If their estimate of the situation is correct, they are not "crossing boundaries". Otherwise they are crossing boundaries and need to withdraw.
Grabbing a knee under the table is of course not a good first move, but we might be missing context.
> I also reject the notion of "position of power" just because he is a VC. Nobody is forced to take his money.
Nobody's forced to work for a boss that harasses them, yet making unwanted sexual advances against someone who reports to you is illegal as hell.
You have a poor legal understanding of sexual harassment. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself as to what kind of advances and relationships are, and are not appropriate in a professional setting.
First, a pitch meeting with a venture capitalist is generally accepted by our culture to be the kind of professional environment that is inappropriate to sexualize in any fashion. While I understand your basic point, you seem to be very interested in denying that there are many situations in life where notions and hints of sex and romance are just not appropriate.
* I hate to think that you might have trouble understanding this, but we're not talking about dating a co-worker. We're not talking about a pitch that didn't succeed followed by three months of radio silence followed by them meeting at a social event and realizing that they are attracted to each other.
* The mutual realization that you are attracted to a coworker is not the same as sexual harassment, it's not the same as being asked out by your manager, and it's not the same as receiving unwelcome sexual advances during a pitch meeting from a man who works at VC firm.
* Asking an available coworker out on a date, however unwise it may be depending on your place of employment and working relationships, is not the same as making remarks about her looks, clothes, or anatomy. It's not the same as denying her an investment or promotion because she rejected your advances.
I hope that clears things up for you.
>> But I reject the immediate interpretation of "man abusing his power to pressure women into sex".
Oh but that's exactly what this was. It was a man abusing his power to pressure women into sex.
>> Grabbing a knee under the table is of course not a good first move, but we might be missing context.
Grabbing the knee of someone you are not mutually involved with is not appropriate behavior in the workplace. Depending on the situation, it may be inappropriate even if you are mutually involved. But without mutual involvement, it's absolute inappropriate.
Maybe it is not even that interesting - a guy overstepped his boundaries? Few readers are probably deep enough in Startup Culture to have heard of him or Binary Capital, so why is it relevant?
I still can't approve of the article because of all the allusions and unwarranted generalizations it makes ("this is why there are so few female founders" and the like). A favorite is cases like Ellen Pao who lose in court but in certain circles her claims continue to be believed.
Obviously, men will always be attracted to women (and sometimes vice versa), and not all men know how to deal with it in an appropriate way. But as in this case, if called out, the bad apples also get eliminated. Also YMMV - for some an unwanted SMS in the middle of the night is a nightmare, others simply shrug it off.
Even assuming women avoid becoming founders because of sleazy VCs - what do they do instead? Men are everywhere, making advances.
I don't see the relevancy to today's Bitcoin price? Presumably MtGox was able to execute the fake trades because they didn't have to provide the money for it? It was simply a number in the database, if the dollars couldn't actually be withdrawn?
Sure, another market could try to pull the same stunt, but do they even have the same scale nowadays? There are many more markets than at the time of MtGox.
I don't think many people claim this things can happen in such scale any more.
I see this article as an additional proof that the spike back then was caused in large part by the ponzi scheme MtGox was.
(Having said that, there were also other good news back then that helped the price - like the hearing in US Senate regarding crypto, that went very well)
It sounds as if people were fired, investigated and so on. I don't understand the part about the medical records. Surely merely wanting to double check the story isn't the issue? Illegally holding the record would, but it seems the responsible person was also fired?
I mean, given their business practices, I am not surprised if their culture turns out to be toxic. I just don't see the reasoning behind blaming him for sexist men in the company, if he never supported such actions.
Maybe you just need to be clarified the meaning of scrapegoat: you kill the goat instead of your son, that's the biblical story. It means blaming someone inferior (or, of inferior importance) instead of someone higher up. Blaming the CEO cannot be scrapegoating by definition.
Yes, from all accounts it's pretty clear that he condoned and even promoted an arsehole culture.
> Were steps not taken to remove the harassers, once the incidents came to light?
Basically, no. Now, years afterwards, a few heads have finally rolled -- but only after it snowballed into a major (international, not just US-national) media scandal. But not back when the incidents first came to light, no.
> How can the CEO watch over every social interaction?
1) By delegating to a HR department with instructions to follow the law. Which instructions they might have had on paper, but obviously not in actual fact, given the real prevailing culture there.
2) So it comes back to, again: By making it clear, in words and example, what the working culture is supposed to be like. So that potential victims can be assured they won't get harrassed, potential harrassers can be assured they won't get away with shit like that, and the HR department can be assured they're supposed to go after the harassers and support the victims, not the other way around.
I don't know, this all feels so obvious I am compelled to question your grounds for asking. Are you really claiming you didn't know this, or couldn't figure it out for yourself? Because even asking the question smells a bit fake; like concern-trolling in support of the culture Kalanick's fostered.
I went to an Ethereum Hackathon and wasn't convinced at the time, that is why I passed. Hopefully/probably their technology has matured since then, but I stopped following their progress.
You miss out on countless opportunities every second.
Back then I evaluated Ethereum and decided against it. That is all there is to it. I don't know how justified the current hype is.
How rich would you have been - 3000%, so 30 times - would you have invested 100000$ in Ethereum, yielding 3 Million $? Or more likely just 1000$, yielding 30000 - nice money, but not really rich?
