81–90 of 484 posts
Binary Capital is a sleazy VC, no ifs ands or buts about it. The valley is really small, and I've heard horrific stories of what this firm has done to their employees and founders. This includes Jonathon Teo as well. This really is just the tip of the iceberg for Binary Capital. I wouldn't take any investments from them ever.
Binary Capital is a sleazy VC, no ifs ands or buts about it. The valley is really small, and I've heard horrific stories of what this firm has done to their employees and founders. This includes Jonathon Teo as well. This really is just the tip of the iceberg for Binary Capital. I wouldn't take any investments from them ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, I read that, but is it necessary to be publicly on the record? Couldn't the information be privately confirmed, protecting the women from retaliation and still allowing the case/accusation to move forward? It just seems like an unnecessary risk/vulnerability. Of course, there's also the fact that by going on the record you also encourage others to do the same, which is an immeasurable benefit.
I am one of the three women who went on the record with my name: Niniane Wang. I initially asked to be anonymous, but no reporter would publish unless they had named sources. I knew that Justin was continuing to harass women. Using my name was the only way to stop him. In other words, yes, it was necessary to be publicly on the record.
is the last thing you want as a founder
Binary Capital is a sleazy VC, no ifs ands or buts about it. The valley is really small, and I've heard horrific stories of what this firm has done to their employees and founders. This includes Jonathon Teo as well. This really is just the tip of the iceberg for Binary Capital. I wouldn't take any investments from them ever.
Serious question, does free speech apply in these situations? You have the unalienable right to speak your mind and some people may be offended but that is not illegal. I totally understand if you are employed by someone you can't easily get away if you are made uncomfortable but this is entirely a voluntary situation. Also, if you really think about it making something that makes someone uncomfortable illegal is wei…
It's true that there are a lot of things that a creep VC could say to a female founder that would be creepy, that would be harassment, that should probably get him fired, but wouldn't be criminal.
But if he makes a creepy statement while physically blocking the woman from exiting the room, or approaches her in a gropey manner but doesn't make contact, that's still assault. Probably not something he would get convicted for unless it was caught on video, but nevertheless...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am surprised by the lack of outrage over this behavior. How about we wait for due process first before we start tearing into it? There's a reason why "innocent until proven guilty" is an important part of our society and comments like these undermine that.
Due process is for criminal charges and sentencing. It doesn't apply anywhere else. [Edit: OK and other state stuff. Point stands.] Even if you sue someone, you only need a "preponderance of evidence" and not to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Outside of a courtroom, you can literally make up anything you want. For example, if you're a founder and you hear a rumor of a VC being a serial harasser, you might decide to s…
Waiting for the facts/verdict though, and not forming an internet mob based on whatever one person or another said, SHOULD apply anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, I read that, but is it necessary to be publicly on the record? Couldn't the information be privately confirmed, protecting the women from retaliation and still allowing the case/accusation to move forward? It just seems like an unnecessary risk/vulnerability. Of course, there's also the fact that by going on the record you also encourage others to do the same, which is an immeasurable benefit.
I am one of the three women who went on the record with my name: Niniane Wang. I initially asked to be anonymous, but no reporter would publish unless they had named sources. I knew that Justin was continuing to harass women. Using my name was the only way to stop him. In other words, yes, it was necessary to be publicly on the record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but due process exists for a reason. We should reserve judgement until the investigation progresses further.
I am one of the three women who went on the record: Niniane Wang. I'm one of the "she-said"s. I have nothing to gain from this. I am not suing. I'm founder & CEO of a Greylock-funded startup. Thankfully Greylock has come out in full support, but I didn't know that beforehand and was very nervous when I decided to do the article. The only way that any reporter would agree to publish was if I used my real name. I knew…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don't. But do you think it's reasonable to crucify him before any investigation happens? My comment was a bit too female-focused. It wasn't about she-said's or a female conspiracy, but rather the ease of getting people to smear someone that has enemies. It's hard not to notice that the claim of sexual harassment is as equally damaging now as being called a communist was in the 50's. It's obviously quite differe…
> It's hard not to notice that the claim of sexual harassment is as equally damaging now as being called a communist was in the 50's. It's obviously quite different, but the damage is identical. And when it comes to something so powerful, we should at least respect due process. It's not, and it's not. Communist witch-hunts were conducted by secret, back-channel, anonymous snitches, and were all about guilt by associa…
Communist witch-hunts were conducted by secret, back-channel, anonymous snitches, and were all about guilt by association. Accusations of sexual harassment put the accuser incredibly out in the open.
It was both. A lot of accusations were made in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, on public record, and those accusers were very visible. For example you can read through http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458/ and see that Emil Lustig, Robert Burman, Herbert K. Sorrell and a number of others had no doubt about who they were accused by - they were accused by Ronald Reagan and Walt Disney.
There was also accusation by rumor mill, which might or might not ever lead to a public accusation.
I've seen both modes with sexual harassment claims. Indeed it is not infrequent that, as with this case, the public claims only emerge after someone has been tarred and feathered by anonymous accusations in the rumor mill.
They were also largely used as a weapon against the weak and unconnected - people without the resources, or even awareness necessary to fight back against secret blacklists.
Most of the people caught up had little actual power. The same is true today by virtue of the simple fact that most of us have very little actual power. But there were very prominent people affected of accusations of being communists, such as Charlie Chaplin and Aaron Copeland. Which is again no different than today.
Furthermore the THREAT of being called a communist was used against very prominent people. That was the heart of Joseph McCarthy's power - powerful people were sincerely afraid of him.
Not to mention that there is a colossal distinction between blackballing people for being communists, and blackballing them for being sexual harassers.
There is a distinction, but I suspect that it goes the other way from what you think.
Communists stood accused of being covert agents of a hostile foreign power that we were at undeclared war with. Their purported aim was to undermine and destroy our country to ensure the victory of said foreign power. And there really were such covert agents. For example Harold Ware, Julius Rosenberg, and Aldrich Ames - all real people and all actually agents of the USSR who worked to undermine the security of the USA.
Sexual harassers stand accused of a personal crime whose legal status is not dissimilar to burglary or arson. They are clearly bad people but not an existential threat to our country.
Which accusation sounds worse?
And besides, if history's any indication, the latter don't have problem making a living. There's always someone willing to take a chance.
Can you provide stories of accused communists starving to death due to the blacklist?