Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dylan604 2074 days ago
This is similar to how priests were quietly shuffled around parishes. Yes, the priest's activity were criminal so it's NOT 1:1 of a comparison. However, keeping shitty people protected by keeping the info private does nobody any good

EDIT: left out the keyword NOT in the 1:1 comparison
1 comments
fairity 2074 days ago
> Keeping the info private does nobody any good.

I'm saying that we should keep the identifying info private until the accusations are substantiated.

The internet mob is merciless, and will very likely ruin this guy's reputation once he's outed.

By outing the guy, you are presuming him guilty and inflicting steep punishment when he could be innocent.

link
1024core 2074 days ago
> I'm saying that we should keep the identifying info private until the accusations are substantiated.

How do you substantiate an accusation like "you insisted on talking to me at 3AM local time after I just stepped off a plane after a 18 hour flight" (or whatever the deets are)?

link
throwaway454582 2074 days ago
> By outing the guy, you are presuming him guilty and inflicting steep punishment when he could be innocent.

In general, yes, but in this case the most convincing candidate is a billionaire. He'll be fine.

link