[smartbit]

3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842301

with this [0] notable comment "Now that Nick has written his story however, it goes back on the front page of HN and the comments here basically support it as totally credible. ... Don't get me wrong, I very very much think that Nick should write up his story and feelings. But I think a lot of people need to examine themselves closely for why they couldn't believe the women who shared their stories yesterday, but now can today."

Jake doesn't mention Nick Farr's accusation. I've been missing Nick the last years at C3 too. Now I know Nick's side of the story, I wonder how the CCC Vorstand [1] and Jake react to censoring the Lightning Talk?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842977

[1] http://www.ccc.de/vorstand

[petertodd]

> "But I think a lot of people need to examine themselves closely for why they couldn't believe the women who shared their stories yesterday, but now can today."

I think this shows how putting your reputation on the line when you accuse someone makes the accusation itself far more powerful and likely to believed; remember that no-one has yet publicly and non-anonymously(1) accused him of rape directly, but rather, have only said that others have accused him.

I hope that if these allegations are true, people in addition to Nick Farr will have the bravery to go public with them - that's what's needed to actually put a stop to abusers.

1) In this context, "non-anonymously" includes commonly used pseudonyms of course - the legal names of people aren't what's important, but rather the identities they commonly use.

[hackuser]

> I think this shows how putting your reputation on the line when you accuse someone makes the accusation itself far more powerful and likely to believed

I agree, but that has to be balanced with the costs, and especially the costs to rape victims.