Comment by throwaway991999 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway991999 | Hacker News Reader

throwaway991999

Made a throwaway name because I have an unpopular opinion.

We've likely read Susan Fowler's blog post. If true, it's awful behavior on the part of HR and management at Uber, and action should be taken.

But that's the thing: a blog post does not establish truth. We've heard from only one side of the story. No one ever asks about the other side, or about whether we are being misled. We only talk about the bravery of the author and condemn the other side.

I think the saddest part of our collective behavior is how quickly we come with pitchforks to a witch trial. We must remember that justice is not decided on Twitter, or on blogs. Justice is not decided by the voice of the accuser.

Did you see evidence besides Susan Flower's putting phrases in quotation marks? She mentions screenshots of improper behavior but provides none. What if tomorrow new evidence comes out that this whole thing was exaggerated or flat out wrong. How would it feel, to being so easily manipulated into drawing a conclusion, into retweeting a fiction, into writing an open letter?

Fowler made accusations of fact. They can be proven or disproven.

She didn't say opinions like "they were meanies to me" or "they gave a promotion to a man when I was the better performer." In that case, people would likely decide who to believe based on their priors.

Instead, she made specific accusations that, if false, Uber could easily show as false. Note that Uber has not even done that. Likely because she can prove the claims are true, in court if necessary.

No one ever asks about the other side, or about whether we are being misled.

That's just not true. There are numerous comments on HN that reflect exactly this sentiment, as well as every other point in your comment.

The other side is not Uber, it's the accused.

No, this was a story about Uber, try to keep up.

Can you please elaborate? Your initial comment makes the point that no one is questioning Susan Fowler's allegations, that it's only one side, that her "blog post does not establish truth." That's the point that many other comments have made, whether it be about what happened at Uber, or more generally about whether the allegations are true at all.

At this point, the accused (or Uber, for that matter) is perfectly free to make some announcement if they so choose. I wouldn't expect them to—nor fault them—as it wouldn't make any sense, politically or legally, to do so at this point, at least until the conclusion of any investigation.

Uber, up to and including the CEO, have admitted publicly that they're working to resolve internal issues.

In Kalanick's place, I would do the exact same thing regardless of whether the claims were valid.

2 years after a jury found that Ellen Pao was full of it, TechCrunch and other media still portrays her as a victim. Most likely they will do the same for Susan Fowler, even if (purely hypothetically) a court finds her to be full of it.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/20/uber-is-not-the-only-tech-...

In such a media climate, you need to genuflect in the direction of all that the masses find holy regardless of the facts. At least if you are good at politics, which Uber is.

"2 years after a jury found that Ellen Pao"

... found that Ellen Pao could not prove her case on the balance of probabilities. That's not the same thing as you just said.

Fowler's claims are statements of fact that can be easily proven if true or easily disproven if false.

By whom? What do you think the public or the media would react when they see a young woman fighting with a multi-billion dollar company that is already in a PR crisis in a sexual harassment case? The truth is always more nuances than just true or false. If as a community we learn a good lesson, then all this is probably worth it.

As for Ms. Fowler, I don't expect her to be a neutral figure, and if you read her tweets, who called for boycott of her ex-employer based on false information, she clearly is not.

People ask for the other side all the time. But where is the other side? Why are they not using neutral outside investigators?

>"Made a throwaway name because I have an unpopular opinion."

Why do you feel the need to make a throwaway account to state your views?

The open letter wasn't about just this one thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com