[s7atic]

> This isn't a court of law, there is no "burden of proof."

That's exactly the problem with news publications like this; they are extrajudicial. They throw away the right to due process. And make no mistake: The consequences for the accused are very tangible.

There are also important second order effects from legitimizing this rhetoric. A democracy cannot exist without a rule of law. When we violate those basic legal principles, we risk destabilizing our society at large.

In some jurisdictions, defamation is illegal irrespective of the claims' veracity in order to ensure the right to due process and avoid non-sactioned punishments. I cannot help but feel legalization in other countries, including the US and UK, have not yet caught up with the forces enabled by today's social media climate.

[krapp]

>And make no mistake: The consequences for the accused are very tangible.

A promotion and a raise? The horror.

> democracy cannot exist without a rule of law. When we violate those basic legal principles, we risk destabilizing our society at large.

It's weird, Hacker News is usually extreme in its defense of absolute freedom of speech and the press, especially the freedom of the press to report negatively on people in positions of power. But when someone writes an article on a Google employee that they don't like, it's "destabilizing our society at large" and violates "basic legal principles."

Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes?

>In some jurisdictions, defamation is illegal irrespective of the claims' veracity in order to ensure the right to due process and avoid non-sactioned punishments.

What defamation?

What punishment? He got a promotion. He was punished with money and power and being in line for CEO.

> cannot help but feel legalization in other countries, including the US and UK, have not yet caught up with the forces enabled by today's social media climate.

Are you trying to make this "cancel culture" now? This has nothing to do with "today's social media climate." There was no Twitter mob calling for Mustafa Suleyman's head, there were internal complaints made by employees.

[s7atic]

> A promotion and a raise? The horror.

This is not an argument in good faith. I'm referring to the consequences of attacking a person's character publicly. We have yet to see what those consequences will be in the case of Mustafa Suleyman.

> It's weird, Hacker News is usually extreme in its defense of absolute freedom of speech and the press, especially the freedom of the press to report negatively on people in positions of power. But when someone writes an article on a Google employee that they don't like, it's "destabilizing our society at large" and violates "basic legal principles."

I cannot say anything about the opinion of HN, and, indeed, I'm the one being downvoted here. My position is that, in order to protect the freedom of the individual, some freedom of speech must be sacrificed. Unlimited freedom of speech risks violating people's right to privacy and due process, which ultimately limits their freedom and promotes conformity. Defamation laws and well-functioning legal systems combat this outcome.

> Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes?

I know as little of Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell as I do of Mustafa Suleyman. If they were unlawfully terminated, I support their cause. My comment was not tied specifically to the case at hand.

> Are you trying to make this "cancel culture" now? This has nothing to do with "today's social media climate."

The consequences of being publicly shamed have never been greater than they are today. This is largely a result of the rise of the information economy and the current design of social media. My point is that many lawmakers have yet to catch up with this development.

> There was no Twitter mob calling for Mustafa Suleyman's head, there were internal complaints made by employees.

Again, I don't think we have seen all the consequences yet. As long as complaints are internal, I have no problem with them.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The underlying idea I think you're missing is that personnel disputes just shouldn't be litigated through the media. There's no reliable information that can be gained and no productive discussion that can be had; the only possible outcome is to feed our confirmation biases and provide a platform to get mad.

For example, you mention:

> Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes?

But lots of people went to the mat for Gebru and Mitchell! And many more were willing to provide an assumption of good faith without necessarily taking their side. You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people. The article has tricked you into getting angry at phantoms and guesswork.

[cma]

> You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people.

Can you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Should you have to?

[SpicyLemonZest]

Well, I’m not sure what “have to” means. If I got a Washington Post article published about how suchandsuch person made a HN comment I don’t like, I would call that a clear case of harassment, no matter how much proof I had that the comment was wrong.

[cma]

So the law should be Washington Post has a criminal-trial style burden of proof for articles?