Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by waseem_ 4439 days ago
Shouldn't it be 'innocent until proven guilty' in this case? This certainly spreads some negative advertisement for Github. If the case is not clear, they should wait till it's clear.
3 comments

The investigation "did find evidence of mistakes and errors of judgment. In light of these findings, Tom has submitted his resignation, which the company has accepted."

That seems entirely guilty (if you want to make it into an issue of guilt)to me. github did have "mistakes and errors of judgment" serious enough that Tom resigned.

There is a difference between mistakes and errors of judgment and "gender-based harassment or discrimination". Someone may be harassed for a different reason than their gender. For example a personal vendetta or abuse of power vs. systemic discrimination against women (or men or other).
Github admits that there was wrongdoing by Github executives, but denies (without details) that any of it was the specific kind for which Github would be legally liable. Its not entirely surprising that people give more weight to the part which constitutes a statement against interest than the part that is clearly self-serving, in the absence of supporting details.
"Innocent until proven guilty" often only applies to legality, and not people's mentality.
It only has legal status in government courts. But it can still be good advice in a broader context.
It can be, but it isn't always. The reason for the presumption of innocence combined with the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal trials is a judgement about the desirability of the particular effects that can be expected with and without that principal.

It cannot automatically be assumed that those considerations generalize to other contexts -- they must be considered in each context.

In the broader context, like in the legal context, it's not a claim about what is true, but rather a claim about what we should believe (or more appropriately, how we should treat the accused) given the evidence we have. You don't say "this person definitely didn't commit a crime, because we don't have evidence," but rather "we don't consider this person guilty, and thus don't punish him or her, until we get some evidence."
Correct. According to SJWs, straight white men are guilty until they're proven innocent, and even afterwards, they're still guilty somehow.
Playing Devil's advocate, who's responsible for the case not being clear if not Github? How will waiting help, if the investigation is already over?