Hacker News Reader

Comment by downandout | Hacker News Reader

This may get downvotes, but the speed with which careers are being destroyed based on mere allegations of sexual misconduct these days is frightening. While the allegations in this case may or may not be true, it is actually possible for a woman to make a false allegation of sexual misconduct. There are myriad reasons that someone would make make such a false allegation against a powerful VC. Yet in today’s environment, even if he ultimately proves himself to be innocent through the lawsuit he claims he is going to file against his accuser, a career death sentence has already been carried out by a virtual lynch mob. That is wrong.

View on HN

I’m not convinced that "career death due to fraudulent sexual misconduct allegations” is a ramptant problem in tech. Based on nearly 100% of women I’ve ever known in tech, the vast majority of sexual misconduct either goes unreported or gets reported and ignored. Maybe you have some better data about this, though. If so, do share.

And besides, I have a hard time imagining that a large VC firm would fire one of its founders on a flimsy claim. He’s obviously extremely valuable to RFJ, so you’d expect they’d have done some basic cost-benefit analysis before getting rid of him. To me, firing him sounds more like “preemptive damage control” in the face of very credible claims than it seems like “overcautious PC policing”.

If there were proof - emails, texts, etc - it would have been leaked to recode and other publications to avoid perceptions like mine. Public disclosures of these kinds of actions are meticulously calculated. Mr. Jurveston clearly disputes the allegations, to the point where he is promising litigation. The lack of evidence publicly presented likely means that it is a flimsy accusation - likely a “he said/she said” kind of thing. The sad thing is that in a post-Weinstein world, “she said” seems to be all that matters.

    Public disclosures of these kinds of actions
    are meticulously calculated

Are they? All we have is a FB post from one of their entrepreneurs. She probably (sensibly) thinks there’s a better authority for dealing with the situation than the general public.

> to avoid perceptions like mine

They totally would have assuaged your fears by emailing you the evidence directly. Your sensitivities were on the top of their list, because God Man, THEY HAVE EMPATHY!

Would you mind sticking to substantive comments, please?

You are just making shit up here.

+1. Although I'd call it a post-Trump world. After all that surfaced about Trump's conduct with women during elections, and him STILL getting elected, women are done with it and taking a stand. I believe Weinstein is merely a happy casualty of Trump's election.

OP just highlights the speed at which careers are getting destroyed on accusations alone (guilty b4 proven innocent), and pragmatically suggests that it is possible for a malicious user to exploit this vulnerability.

Also Steve wasn't fired from DFJ (not RFJ), he left to sue

I was gonna reply to your first draft (the one which started “reeks of troll”), but then it was already changed by the time I clicked the “reply” button. You’ve made at least five edits since then. Stop, think, write, post.

My bad, I felt I sounded a little passive-aggressive. New on the boards. Let me know your thoughts on the final draft:)

The crux of the problem is how to set up a system where people feel comfortable coming forward without creating one that incentivizes false accusations. This is exacerbated by the externalities surrounding sexual misconduct: sometimes it's one word against another, sometimes the evidence isn't that strong, and many victims are so impacted by the misconduct/abuse that they may not want to relive the experience through the legal/judicial system. And as we see here, an accusation of sexual misconduct can be so damaging to the accused that they may seek financial restitution - no matter whether they did or didn't commit the crime. Finally, there is an element of ambiguity as to what constitutes sexual harassment (in some cases, definitely not all) and what does not.

I don't think there's a good solution to the problem within our existing legal framework. Probably the best short-term fix is to encourage victims to document incidences of sexual misconduct as soon they occur (including gathering e.g. biological evidence) and to report on them as soon as possible. Of course, the natural response to sexual misconduct is often to dedicate time to reconciling the fact that it happened, not to seek legal recourse, so this couldn't be perfect.

This woman likely does not have enough money to compensate him for the actual damages that would be awarded at trial should he prevail, let alone any punitive damages. Lost potential earnings etc. would likely be in the billions in this case. For all intents and purposes, the lawsuit and any money he did recover would be meaningless except perhaps as a personal vindication.

His career ended when she made the accusation. The standard of proof in these cases seems to be “I said he did it,” and that is wrong when the penalty seems to be instant banishment from your career and society in general.

Well, yes, which is exactly my point. A victim is heavily discentivized from coming forward with an accusation if there's a chance they will be financially ruined from it, even if it's true. This means that wealthy and powerful people with great lawyers are insulated from all but the most clear-cut cases, which is definitely not a desirable system.

There's also the fact that wealthy people can settle a sexual misconduct case even if they did commit it. You shouldn't be able to pay someone $900k to make an accusation go away and then face no criminal repercussions. Even if the victim is ok with that, the perpetrator is still free to harm other victims.

> His career ended when she made the accusation.

That doesn't seem to me to be true. DFJ carried out some kind of investigation, as the article mentions. I don't agree with your assertion that any evidence they found would have been leaked by now (or would necessarily ever be leaked). And I can't believe that DFJ's investigation into such an important person in their organization would have been cursory, nor that they would fire him without substantial cause.

We don't know what the investigation found, and we may never know. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything.

That is an extremely simplified version of what happened. She did far, far more than just say, "He touched me." And those in the company felt the accusation credible enough to choose to no longer associate with him.

I'm sorry, but the "What about the men?" take is quite childish, and treats women like they have cooties or something.

> The crux of the problem is how to set up a system where people feel comfortable coming forward without creating one that incentivizes false accusations.

My rule of thumb about these things is that if some guy is a creep, he will have been a creep to multiple women. See Louis C. K., Roy Moore, etc. By coming forward, the women will back each other up. I'll remain a bit skeptical until I hear more than one accusation.

Craaaaig Jurgenson, or whatever his name is, only has one accuser so far, but he took it seriously enough to let himself be fired. I won't say he's guilty, but it sure looks suspicious.

First of all, if you have been on ycombinator for any length of time, you knew this would end up top reply, not downvoted.

Secondly, will this is wrong, the main alternative seems to be years of unreported abuse. The men (and it is mostly men) have had years to take these kinds of accusations seriously, and work towards an environment where should accusations could be handled fairly. They have failed at that goal.

While I am fear a small number of people may get falsely accused, the opening of the floodgates will, I hoped be a long term good.

You’re wrong, the post is currently at -2 points and falling. My faith in the lynch mob mentality of today’s environment is well placed. Any hint that even one of these accusations may be false or overblown will be met with immediate negative reactions, despite the fact that little is publicly known about this case other than the consequences for Mr. Jurveston.

There is a percent of false accusations for any kind of crime. However, it is the lowest when it comes to harassment and other anti-women crimes due to enormous costs victims have to pay (in every sense) to raise their voice. It is ridiculous to use unavoidable and very low percent of false accusations as an argument against attempts that victims make to restore justice with no working framework. Currently we don't have proper mechanisms to protect these victims, and in many cases speaking out is the only thing they can do. They shouldn't be blamed for the absence of these mechanisms.

Because you're not presenting anything new. You're not providing any kind of evidence that the accusation might be false. You added nothing but a backhanded, "Women do bad things!" comment.

>Yet in today’s environment, even if he ultimately proves himself to be innocent through the lawsuit he claims he is going to file against his accuser, a career death sentence has already been carried out by a virtual lynch mob. That is wrong.

Has this ever actually happened?

Sometimes it isn't just career death

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sargeant

I've read that article twice and nowhere does it indicate he was cleared of the accusations.

how does one become 'cleared of accusations'?

Police investigation? Parliamentary one? Alibis, inconsistencies in the story, etc.? People are cleared of alleged crimes/improprieties all the time.

a hyper-concrete alibi usually works (such as reliable documentation of being on a different continent), but everything else is just "absence of evidence" (not a clearing).

unless "cleared" actually just means "insufficient evidence".

I was talking about being falsely accused. All signs in his case are that he actually did it.

Did what? The allegations weren't even put to the "accused" let alone a court of law.

Let me be clear, I don't know whether he was guilty or not, the biggest reason being that the accusations are public.

But that's the rub, just an allegation can be enough to trigger all sorts of repercussions regardless of the guilt of the accused.

Accusations should be taken seriously unless prima facie absurd (the raped by someone who wasn't in the country for 20 years level of absurd). And in most cases should initially lead to suspension pending investigation for offences that would lead to a custodial sentence.

Firing and other forms of response where there is no way back is prejudicial and lacking natural justice.

[EDIT] added large clarification

Joe Lonsdale?

yes, if all of those circumstances are true, then it would be unfair to the accused (and should be punished accordingly).

however, it seems to me that journalists are being unusually careful about reporting these abuse allegations because of the exact pitfall you point out. some of the reports cite tens of sources (some named and some unnamed), so they're trying to play it safe when it comes to the reporting.

that's not to say that journalalists are infallible, but that they are taking precautions not to potentially destroy careers based on rumors alone.

It is concerning.

I am not even sure what the attitude should be.

By default I would say that when there are serious allegations we should wait until a trial has been conducted.

But there are also cases emerging of dozen of people finally speaking out about an individual, where some kind of opportunistic fabrication seems very unlikely.

How should we balance the 2 ?

I don't see how why this topic has become all of the sudden a crime where journalists are the judges and not a court of law. It saddens me that society has become so blood hungry again that there are almost seasonal public lynchigs going on. It hurts also the crime itself. In a few weeks nobody is going to care about it anymore as the next whitch is going to be hunted through the village.

> I don't see how why this topic has become all of the sudden a crime where journalists are the judges and not a court of law

It hasn't. It still is a crime where criminal courts of law are the applicable courts.

It's also a tort where civil courts of law are the applicable court.

It's also a moral and PR issue where individuals in deciding their own personal business are the applicable decision-makers.

Journalists are relaying the information on which people make decisions on both responsibility and consequences, but they aren't making the decisions.

> It saddens me that society has become so blood hungry again that there are almost seasonal public lynchigs going on.

No one is getting lynched.

Oh, give me a break, the decision to fire someone is not decided by a court of law and never was in the history of the universe. These stories broken by journalists in the last couple months are have investigations that are 10x more thorough than any HR department would ever conduct.

Conducting an investigation and reporting on factual information is not "lynching." Suggesting it is is a gross assult on freedom itself.

In most of these rapid takedown cases, the accused doesn't contest the allegations (or only sort of does). Easy to overestimate how often this happens.

And the destruction is mutual for the most part. The moment the accusation is made, the accuser will experience some stigma too.

As sad as it may be, hardly frightening.

I was thinking this too. I do believe there are a lot of victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. However, what concerns me is that their truths are being overshadowed by those who seek to use these accusations as a way to screw over somebody they didn't like or for attention or even for money. It is quite frightening and it could happen to anyone.

> their truths are being overshadowed by those who seek to use these accusations as a way to screw over somebody they didn't like or for attention or even for money.

Wow. Given the well-supported allegations of sexual misconduct, published in reputable newspapers recently, yours is quite the claim. Who is doing this for attention? Do you have any evidence?

Jackie from the UVA story?

Are you saying that you know this is happening, or that you are concerned by the possibility of it happening?

> However, what concerns me is that their truths are being overshadowed by those who seek to use these accusations as a way to screw over somebody they didn't like or for attention or even for money.

Like who?

>This may get downvotes, but the speed with which careers are being destroyed based on mere allegations of sexual misconduct these days is frightening.

I think that traditional avenues have failed victims. This is especially true for Hollywood which has been abusing power long before the tech industry existed (see the exploitation of Judy Garland from the Wizard of Oz)[0].

If there are any false allegations (through evidence or admission), we will need to see how the media treats that. If they don't give it the same coverage as the accused are currently getting, then that's obviously a problem with the media and society. That would clearly be bias and possibly sexist.

If all of these allegations hold true, then the media has successfully done the job where law and society could not.

[0] https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/02/judy-garland-si...

> a career death sentence has already been carried out by a virtual lynch mob

Did you read the article you are commenting on?

> "... sources said that the investigation uncovered behaviors by Jurvetson that were unacceptable related to a negative tone toward women entrepreneurs."

So if the article is correct, your claim that there is nothing more than "mere allegations" so far is wrong.

It's how it always works though things are never in equilibrium. Todays environment is direct result of those in power either ignoring the problem or being part of the problem for a long time. Now as pendulum is moving in the opposite direction it will swing by the equilibrium point and move far enough in opposite direction (proportional to how far out of balance it was before).

What are we to do? Letting a suspected abuser remain in a position where they can abuse seems less than ideal as well.

Steve Jurvetson, at the end of this, will still be wealthy and powerful. Even if he is innocent, him losing his job is a small price to pay when balanced against the countless women who are harassed and assaulted every day.

And let's be clear, he's probably not innocent.

If the allegation is false then Mr. Jurvetson could seek significant civil and in certain cases even criminal penalties. Making a serious false accusation against someone that damages their career is not something one does lightly, especially someone with significant financial resources at their disposal. If the accusation is actual rape then it would be making a false criminal charge, which is a felony.

It sounds as if lawsuits are going to be filed, which means these claims may get examined in a court of law.

For these reasons I'm inclined to think there's likely something to this. If there isn't then the accuser(s) must have either nothing to lose, a serious axe to grind, or are being paid by someone to do this. These seem unlikely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com