Facebook’s Jan Koum Apologizes for Past Restraining Order
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Facebook’s Jan Koum Apologizes for Past Restraining Order
(2) If they were out to "trash" him, they could have dug up, and perhaps pontificated on some of the statements in the court documents. So if anything, they were exercising restraint in choosing not to do so. Being as some of these are quite troubling indeed:
http://images.businessweek.com/bloomberg/pdfs/Jan_Koum_docum...
(3) Oh, and one more thing:
“Over the years, I have thought a lot about that difficult period of my life,” he said. “I have many regrets and things I wish I could go back and change, but I have also worked hard and tried to improve myself.”
Those are certainly nice thoughts. But given his recent good fortune (due in no small measure to pure blind luck), he has an opportunity to make a much more substantial statement of contrition.
Rather than mull over what he could have done differently in the past, he has a very real and definite opportunity to make a difference now: education and training for women's self-defense; campaigns against gender-based harassment, or violence against sex workers (and sexual slavery); working to end female genital mutilation; to name a few. Being as $7.4b is orders of magnitude more money than nearly anyone could realistically even know what to do with (let alone reasonably need, in any real sense).
Are you listening, Jan?
It's from 18 years ago. I guess you're proud of everything you did when you were a teenager?
And yes, when you not only report on an 18 year old incident that resulted in no criminal charges, but also post the court documents for all to see, you are trying to trash the person in pursuit of a few extra clicks on your ads.
Posting the court documents is standard Bloomberg operating procedure (they do that for nearly every story the write), though you're right, it may have been uncalled for in this case. But given that Koum himself chose to come forward with a statement, it wasn't exactly yellow journalism for them to write about it.
No one should have to explain 18 year old conduct that resulted in absolutely no arrest or criminal charges and took place when they were 19 years old. It's called a smear campaign. Oh and the high-minded reason they did it? Maybe they were fighting for women's rights? Nope. It was so that they could get a few clicks on their ads. It's the TMZ strategy. It's base, classless nonsense. If there is a single false or inaccurate word in that story, I hope he sends a phalanx of lawyers to go in and sue them into the stone age.
Depends on the conduct.
What's important is that (extreme) suffering was caused by his actions. Not that the victim chose not to deepen their suffering by asking for a criminal investigation. Or that the local statutes may have simply been too vague at the time to offer any further protection.
As to the other stuff you're saying: either you have some direct knowledge, which we do not, of both the event chronology behind the various journalistic investigations (several outlets were working on the story, not just Bloomberg) and the internal motivations of those involved -- or you're indulging in speculation, here.
Either way, I don't have an answer to it.