Also, take your language back to 4chan whence you came.
[1] Other than offering pitty.
1. The expectations of everyone involved. Does EJ have an expectation of privacy? Could she be expecting to keep her personal life, as much as possible, separate from the whole flap on the internet? Does AirBnB have an expectation of handling this without PG's assistance? Does PG have an expectation of not being dragged into a situation in which he could have involved himself if he so wished? (I think it's pretty clear at this point what my opinion of jacques' actions here is.)
2. All of the possible outcomes, and the likelihood of each one. Is it possible that tracking down someone's contact information -- using information gleaned from their blog -- will emotionally harm them in a situation that has already made them feel extremely vulnerable? Is it possible that there are currently unknown legal complications now, and that PG cannot become involved? Is it possible that attempting to involve him could make the situation even more complicated?
3. Whether or not the interference is even needed. Look, EJ has managed to get her story into the print edition of the Financial Times. It's spreading like wildfire online. I think it's very clear that she can handle herself. And, if AirBnB can't handle themselves, with all the money they recently raised and all of the resources they have at their disposal (monetary and advisory and otherwise), then they have no business being in business.
I've interfered in others' lives and situations on numerous occasions. I've seen the results of my actions go sideways. I've put more and more effort into understanding and considering a situation before leaping in. I've, finally, more recently, resolved to quit screwing around in other people's situations as much as possible.
Perhaps putting his internet detective skills to work only to let the woman know that her identity was at risk would have been a smart thing to do. Passing her contact information on to a third party -- regardless of who that party is or why -- without either her permission or that third party's permission, was a rookie mistake. It might have been well-meaning, but it was still a mistake.
The guy getting unfairly downvoted up above is exactly right: we should all be shutting the hell up and getting some fucking work done. (Myself included.)
PG dragged himself in to it by standing up for AirBNB's actions in a public forum.
He probably should not have done that.
> Passing her contact information on to a third party -- regardless of who that party is or why -- without either her permission or that third party's permission, was a rookie mistake. It might have been well-meaning, but it was still a mistake.
Agreed, and I have apologized to her that I did not seek her consent first, based on the note I received afterwards it seems that she is ok with it, but that does not diminish my mistake and I should be more careful with stuff like that.
First, PG has a financial interest in keeping the company growing strong.
Second and most importantly, if PG intervenes here against the will of other investors, they may not want to invest in future companies where PG is a shareholder. So it is vastly in PG's interest to not act on the contact info you gave him.
Overall, all you did was seriously creep out a vulnerable lady.
This is not a movie. This is not a case of a burning house and you're the only one in the vicinity to rush into and rescue a child stuck in his room. In fact, if there is a burning house and the firefighters have already arrived, your well intentioned actions may put their lives at risk
Not all "good" actions remain "good" in every context.