[slice_of_life]

Mistakes are made all the time. I swear to you, there's an exaggerated amount of hate towards Travis. You'd think he's the devil. What has he done that's so bad? He simply founded a company that was super successful within a short time, with an idea that seems so easy that everyone thinks they could've done it and along the way some missteps were made.

Are you sure you would've done better? Would you like it if the plurality of stakeholders in your ecosystem vilified you in a similar way? I'm sure you wouldn't. Cut Travis some slack!

[emodendroket]

> He simply founded a company that was super successful within a short time, with an idea that seems so easy that everyone thinks they could've done it and along the way some missteps were made.

Yeah, I suppose if you elide every reason he was removed he doesn't sound so bad.

[delazeur]

> Would you like it if the plurality of stakeholders in your ecosystem vilified you in a similar way?

If I was having background investigations done on rape victims in order to discredit them for my own benefit, I would deserve it.

[obvthrowaway]

Honest question looking for an honest answer.

"Trust, but verify" is well-regarded modus operandi. Why is it acceptable in other circumstances but not this one?

If "trust, but verify" can be a legitimate threat mitigation strategy, how does one conduct the verification in good faith and avoid such verification being labeled as being an "attempt to discredit"?

I honestly don't see how rape differs from any other accusation of wrongdoing with respect to due process. Is it not the right of the accused to question the accounts of their accuser and conduct their own investigation?