Hacker News Reader

Comment by tenementfunster | Hacker News Reader

'Start with the assumption that harassment reports are true and investigate them thoroughly'

Sorry, what? We have this whole ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" in America (and many other places) so you can kindly take this nonsense elsewhere.

View on HN

You can't post like this here, even in (especially in) a highly inflamed discussion. Comments on HN need to be civil and substantive.

In a court of law we should all be innocent until proven guilty. Outside of court if I behave like an asshole you have the right to not hang out with me or even suffer my presense. In fact, you even have the right to say: snassar is an asshole and I won't hang out on Hacker News if you tolerate him. It's up to the rest of Hacker News to decide if you are right or not.

Remember, this is aimed at employers and open-source projects, not the justice system. Besides, what alternative are you suggesting? Start with the assumption that harassment reports are false, and throw them in the trash?

Somewhere in between.

For example:

We recognize that false reports are very unlikely, but we also recognize there is currently an enormous social bonus awarded to victims of harassment, particularly female victims. Let's examine all the facts, and even if we can't gather enough evidence to take any action, we'll keep a record of this report for any future incidents.

What social bonus is awarded to victims enough to justify speaking out? I'd say any negatives greatly outweigh the attention they might receive. Countless victims never come forward for good reason.

If any corporation used your suggestion as an official statement including the "but we also" segment, they'd be thrashed mercilessly in the media, and for good reason.

Why not just start with: "All complaints will be investigated, and regardless of outcome, records will be kept for future reference."

> What social bonus is awarded to victims enough to justify speaking out?

Particularly in tech, from most to least common:

1. An outpouring of sympathy

2. An outpouring of attention

3. Mobs of angry people ready to fight on your behalf

4. Job offers

5. Conference speaking offers

> they'd be thrashed mercilessly in the media

Yes, they would.

Vs: mobs working against you, companies avoiding you because your name is now associated with something negative, abuse/threats on social media, etc.

Start by having a fair policy that protect everyone involved, without ignoring complaints.

1# All complaints will be investigated

2# All accusation of crimes will be forwarded to the police.

3# All details will be held behind locked doors, including the name/s of the accused and name/s of the accuser.

4# Actions will be taken if policy has been broken, as per a impartial committee that is picked by the community. Actions will also be taken if anyone is found guilty of a crime by the justice system.

Perhaps they should start with no assumptions, thoroughly investigate the issue, and let the evidence speak for itself.

Why does this 'rule' applying to organizations make it any different? It is always morally shady (at least, unfair) to assume by default that someone is guilty without any sort of process.

Um, investigate them impartially?

It's not up to open source maintainers to act as a poor mirror of the judicial system. If someone is breaking the law, the authorities should handle it. If the accused is found guilty, then they can be kicked out of the project/fired...

I can't agree with you. Open-source communities have both the right and the responsibility to protect themselves from toxic people. If I showed up in, say, the Firefox issue tracker and started trolling people and insulting their contributors, they'd ban me without thinking twice. I wouldn't have broken any laws, but they'd still be well within their rights to get rid of me.

Criminal law uses the "beyond all reasonable doubt" burden of proof.

Civil law uses the "balance of probabilities" burden of proof.

A project kicking out a member doesn't have to meet any burden of proof, they just have to show that they're not being discriminatory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com