[thegp]

As a contrast see https://mobile.twitter.com/cfarivar/status/74163457267311001....

If the allegations true, they should prosecute, and should have prosecuted immediately. As well as all the other people who knew of it. And we should continue to work towards a world where that is a no brainer.

Most people are nice. It's only a few people, mostly with unfortunate backgrounds or fates that are not. Let's work towards institutions which handle this efficiently, without the need for mobs

[zorpner]

"As contrast see" someone who wasn't abused state that they know he's a nice guy? That's not convincing to anyone who doesn't disbelieve victims by default.

The idea that people who suffer abuse are in the wrong by not going to authorities who typically also disbelieve them is poisonous.

[thegp]

Contrast as in "here is a different opinion by people who also know him better than most of us". Truth will be found (hopefully) by a criminal investigation, not by by the court of public opinion.

You are right, victim blaming is horrible. That's why I didn't say "they should have said something immediately, now they have lost credibility"

I understand why they might not go immediately and don't blame them for it. I still think the right thing is immediate prosecution. If they don't feel like they will be helped by the authoritiesthat is a problem, which needs to be addressed both on the sides of the authorities (with proper training and procedures) and education (teaching people to prosecute immediately instead of shutting up)

[zorpner]

The whole point of this type of abuse stemming from authority is to make the abused discredited, typically by recruiting people into one's defense (and, in fact, Alison cites a specific instance where she was recruited into defending). What would be unusual in a case of systemic abuse would be to find no one who stepped up to defend the abuser who had no direct knowledge of the abuse.

Their opinion is clearly irrelevant to the question of whether abuse occurred, and that they would offer such an irrelevant opinion is neutral evidence at best.

Also re authorities, you're talking about people on the Tor project, and most systemic abusers are pretty careful to not provide a clear chain of evidence. So you're asking someone to go to an authority they likely specifically distrust to blow up their relationship with their community likely for no gain, since there will almost certainly not be a successful prosecution. I'm sure you can see how this might not be an appealing option.

[thegp]

Ok, I see your points there.

I just really dislike this situation where it boils down to "(s)he said/(s)he said" and the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" flies out the window

Another thing I don't get is why they wouldn't prosecute now that the community is already fractured.

[zorpner]

Thank you for listening! I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sort of legal action eventually, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there weren't -- as mentioned, it's unlikely he left any hard evidence of wrongdoing. Though of course a lot of people who thought they were alone in their abuse are now learning that this was systemic, so they may be able to piece something together.

[sethish]

Did you consider reading the helpful FAQ on their website http://jacobappelbaum.net/? They explain in detail why they aren't seeking prosecution.

[dragonwriter]

> If the allegations true, they should prosecute, and should have prosecuted immediately.

Prosecution of alleged crimes is, in most jurisdictions, at the sole discretion of the state, not that of the injured parties.

(Civil litigation is possible at the instigation of the injured parties, but the calculation of whether that is desirable even if legally justified is not so straightforward that one could reasonably, in a blanket way, say that if there allegations are true, they should make and pursue them in court.)

[vox_mollis]

One thing you may not be considering is that the Tor community largely comprises highly libertarian or anarchist individuals. There is a strong bias against giving moral sanction to The State by utilizing the services of its judicial system.

You may not agree, but this is an important psychological factor when discussing this particular community.

[exolymph]

Among the many other issues with trying to report sexual assault to the authorities, many of the individuals involved are anarchists or libertarians and don't want to involve state powers that they view as equally abusive.

[thegp]

So why not say something immediately at least?

Also, and this is where I probably sound like an as:

If you are an anarchist and don't believe in law enforcement OR in the ability of your community to replace them then tough shit if something happens and you have nobody to turn to. That is kinda the whole purpose od ordered society to provide a way to deal with that

[exolymph]

>So why not say something immediately at least?

Have you ever been sexually assaulted? (That's a rhetorical question, unless you actually want to answer.) It's deeply traumatic. In situations where you previously trusted the person who hurt you, it can be very hard to come to terms with what actually happens. Many victims feel shame. It takes time and often therapy to come to a place where you're ready to speak about it publicly.

(I'm not saying this is the experience of everyone who's ever been sexually assaulted, but it's an experience that has been commonly attested to.)

[thegp]

No, thankfully not.

And yes, I understand that, the "immediately" was a bit knee jerk. But at least part of what you described is what I meant in another comment here: it should be part of both education and procedures to make immediate prosecution not only possible but a no brainer. Then we can avoid situations like this, which always reeks to me as "guilty until proven innocent"

[exolymph]

The accounts of multiple victims, both anonymous and high-profile members of the community, are sufficiently convincing to me.

[peterwwillis]

Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.